1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

CASE NO. 0:20-mc-60876-RKA 

In Re: Novoship (UK) Limited, 

 Plaintiffs, Friday, October 30, 2020 

 

 vs. 

 Telephonic Hearing 

Harry Sargeant, Jr., et al., 

 

 Defendants. Pages 1 through 38 

TRANSCRIPT OF DISCOVERY HEARING 

BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK M. HUNT 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Appearance of Counsel (Telephonic): 

For the Plaintiffs: Ana Maria Barton, Esq. 

 Edward Maurice Mullins, Esq. 

 REED SMITH LLP 

For the Defendants: Jeffrey Scott Wertman, Esq. 

 BERGER SINGERMAN 

Transcribed By: Judith M. Wolff 

 Certified Realtime Reporter 

 crjudywolff@gmail.com 

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 1 of 38
 2

(Court was called to order.)

THE COURT: Calling Case No. 20-60876-MC-Hunt, In Re:

Novoship (UK) Limited.

Counsel, if you could please announce your appearance

for the record.

MS. BARTON: This is Ana Barton, on behalf of

applicant Novoship (UK) Limited.

MR. MULLINS: Ed Mullins, also on behalf of Novoship.

With Reed Smith.

MR. WERTMAN: Jeffrey Wertman, from Berger Singerman,

on behalf of the nonparties Harry Sargeant, Jr., Daniel

Sargeant, James Sargeant, Sargeant Marine Inc., and Berger

Singerman LLP.

THE COURT: All right. We're here for a hearing on

the nonparty's motion for protective order and objections to

subpoenas and to modify the subpoenas.

I have reviewed the pleadings. I have also reviewed

the slides that were provided this morning, so you don't have

to go over everything.

But let me hear first from, I guess, the movant,

which would be Mr. Wertman.

MR. WERTMAN: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon.

And we appreciate --

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

MR. WERTMAN: -- you're accommodating our schedule

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 2 of 38
 3

today.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WERTMAN: Our position is set forth in Docket

Entry 10, which is our motion, and Docket Entry 13, which is

our reply.

We've set forth the facts that the original discovery

requests in the subpoenas served by the applicant Novoship

were staggering in scope and imposed unreasonable demands on

the nonparties, which I will refer to as all of my clients

collectively.

Notwithstanding Novoship did amend the request and

purportedly tried to narrow the requests, but those narrowed

requests are still vastly overbroad, unduly burdensome and

intrusive, demand that the nonparties respond on behalf of

other companies, seek documents that aren't probative of

claims currently pending or in reasonable contemplation, seek

documents which could be more readily accessible from other

sources, and run afoul of the proportionality rule in Federal

Rule 26, which applies to subpoenas under Rule 45 and in

Section 1782 actions.

In the opposition that the applicant filed, which is

Docket Entry 12, they do not address at all -- unless I missed

it -- the proportionality requirement, the balancing that the

Court is supposed to go through to balance the interests of

the need for the discovery, and the other factors that are

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 3 of 38
 4

Rule 26(b), including the parties' relative access to relevant

information, the parties' resources, and whether the burden or

expense of a proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Wertman, let me interrupt you.

I think maybe part of the reason that they didn't

respond to specifics in your objections is it looks like all

you did is repeat the same five or six kind of boilerplate

objections over and over again.

You put them all in your motion which, you know, I

know your firm has practiced in front of me and other judges

in this district, and pretty much all of us have, number one,

a page requirement -- which isn't applicable here because I

haven't entered my order yet -- but some of us tell you don't

just give us objections that repeat the same rote boilerplate

objections over and over again, and say with respect to

everything it's overly broad, it's burdensome, it's not

proportional.

How can they respond to that sort of thing when it's

just boilerplate? How can I rule on it?

MR. WERTMAN: Well, respectfully, your Honor, the

objections that we asserted we believe should be read in

conjunction with the balance and remainder of the motion,

which explains the issues that we're talking about, and in the

reply.

So yes, I understand the rule about boilerplate

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 4 of 38
 5

objections, and we endeavor to comply with that rule. But in

this situation, I think we've explained the basis for our

objections in the narrative portions of the motion which

preceded the actual responses to the individual requests.

And having said that, your Honor, we would really --

our client, our clients are not parties to the issues in

London, and the narrowed requests will impose an extraordinary

burden on our clients both financially and time-wise.

I don't know if your Honor is familiar with the

recent Department of Justice ruling that Sargeant Marine Inc.,

which is one of my clients who received a subpoena, pled

guilty and agreed to pay $16 million in criminal fines that's

been widely publicized through an investigation of the U.S.

Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of New York. That

was something that happened less than a month ago.

So with respect to one of the Rule 26 factors, the

burden and expense and the parties' resources, my client has

to pay $16 million.

We ask that you consider that in connection with just

the general burden of e-discovery, which we laid that out in

our reply what the sequence of events and methodology for us

to have to comply with those requests would be, and we

estimated those costs.

Our litigation support group at Berger Singerman gave

me their best estimates as to what it would cost just to get

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 5 of 38
 6

Sargeant's server up and running and have an outside vendor

host it so we can then go ahead and start doing searches.

What really complicates this, your Honor, is that

Andrew Preston, who you can -- you will note from our papers,

he's a solicitor in London, who represents Latin American

Investments Limited, which is really the entity from which

they want to get these documents from.

Latin -- LAIL, which is Latin American Investments,

is an Isle of Man company. And rather than subpoena LAIL,

they subpoenaed Sargeant Marine and other individuals.

So we don't think that's proper, but in any event,

Mr. Preston is the one who represented LAIL in the London

litigation against the Ruperti parties. And Mr. Preston is

the attorney who was intimately involved with the disputes

between the various shareholders under the joint ventures that

are mentioned in the petition.

So in terms of identifying responsive documents, once

everything is loaded up, Mr. Preston is going to need to be

involved and people from his office are going to need to be

involved, as well as our firm.

He doesn't understand, you know, U.S. law, Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, so we will have to be involved in

terms of identifying confidentiality and privilege, but he's

going to need to be involved to really identify what's

responsive.

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 6 of 38
 7

If I look at a document that may be identified as

potentially responsive, I'm not going to know if it's really

responsive or not. Mr. Preston is going to need to tell me

that.

So this is a very cumbersome, time consuming and

expensive endeavor and we're not parties to this.

Now, I did get a chance to look at the PowerPoint

that was put together by the applicant's counsel. I received

it around 12:00 this afternoon. I didn't really get a chance

to thoroughly look at it, but it looks like that they need --

they claim they need all of this discovery to support two

defenses in the foreign proceeding, right?

The first defense is discovery related to

establishing Dan Sargeant and Daniel Hall knew it was an

unauthorized disclosure. That's also in paragraph 5 of the

petition.

Those documents, your Honor, are easily accessible.

And I have offered to produce those to the Reed Smith law firm

to satisfy all of the subpoenas, but they did not agree to

that.

There is a pending case, your Honor, and it's also

listed on their PowerPoint, on the last page. It's called

Daniel Hall, et al., v. Harry Sargeant, III, Southern District

of Florida, 2018. I believe Judge Altman is the judge that

presides over that case.

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 7 of 38
 8

That case, all of my clients, all of the individual

Sargeant family members that I represent, that my firm

represents, were deposed in that case, including the director

of I.T., Daniel Sargeant, Harry Sargeant, Jr. -- who is also

known as Senior -- James Sargeant, Annette Perez. They were

all deposed in that case.

And attached to their depositions are exhibits which

go to the very issue that -- something that Novoship seeks as

part of the first affirmative defense on its PowerPoint

regarding the alleged unauthorized disclosure.

In addition to all of our clients being deposed,

Harry Sargeant, III and all of his family members were

deposed.

Mr. Hawks (phonetic), who is attending this call

right now as a guest, represents Harry Sargeant, III and his

entity IOTC.

So there is voluminous testimony that already exists

in the related case in which Daniel Hall and Burford Capital

are parties, and Reed Smith should have obtained all of the

transcripts of the depositions, all of the exhibits. And they

would have had a much better idea of what they really need in

London.

We do not have copies of those transcripts, or the

exhibits. We did not order those because we're not a party.

But I'm sure if they were subpoenaed by the Reed Smith law

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 8 of 38
 9

firm, if he subpoenaed Harry Sargeant, III, they would obtain

all of that.

And all of that is -- those depositions lasted entire

days. They were very lengthy. And there is a ton of

discovery in that case which I don't know if they've obtained

already.

So --

THE COURT: So you're saying you did not have access

to that information, but that Novoship can access that

independently?

MR. WERTMAN: Novoship, if they subpoenaed Harry

Sargeant, III, who is a party to that case, I presume Harry

Sargeant, III would comply and produce copies of all those

deposition transcripts of our clients.

And I know -- I attended those depositions and

defended them, so I know there were specific discussions about

the alleged transfer of information, the highly sensitive

information that Mr. Hall obtained.

So that's really an easy thing for them to do. I

would like to help them, but I don't have those transcripts.

I would certainly give them to them if I did.

The other defense that they raise which they say all

of this discovery goes to is some kind of public interest

defense.

They say that one of their defenses in the foreign

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 9 of 38
 10

proceeding is that the disclosure was justified because it

uncovered Ruperti's wrongful conduct by pocketing the PDVSA

settlement funds.

And they say in order to prove that defense, they

need to show that Ruperti acted wrongfully towards LAIL and

the Sargeant family, and so they seek discovery of the merits

of LAIL's allegations against Ruperti, including the joint

venture relationship and how the PDVSA settlement was handled,

et cetera, et cetera.

Now, that case was settled by my client LAIL and it

was dismissed. And what they say in -- I'm trying to shuffle

some papers here so I can be responsive -- in the declaration

of Steven Kirpatrick (phonetic), which is -- can be found at

Docket Entry 1-1, it's an exhibit to Novoship's petition, at

paragraph 38, they -- Novoship further explains that second

defense and why they need the discovery.

And they say, quote, to prevail on that defense,

however, it must be proven that Mr. Ruperti and the foreign

claimants were in fact liable to LAIL, i.e., that Mr. Ruperti

did actually divert monies from LAIL and deceive LAIL as to

this fact.

And they go on and say the foreign defendants are

therefore effectively in the position of having to litigate

LAIL's claim in full as part of their own defense.

Well, a few responses to that, Judge. First of all,

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 10 of 38
 11

Novoship decided, voluntarily, to assert that defense in the

foreign proceeding. So if they didn't have adequate

information or basis to assert that defense in London, they

should not have asserted that defense.

And it seems like what they want to do is get all of

the work product information that LAIL based its claims on,

which were settled and dismissed, and re-litigate that. And

that's like an extremely sensitive subject.

And that again goes back to Mr. Preston. There is no

requirement, we acknowledge, that Novoship should have

subpoenaed Mr. Preston before they initiated the 1782 action.

However, it goes to the balancing of factors and the burden.

Had they done that, Mr. Preston would have followed and

complied with London, with English law, and they could have

gotten those documents more readily, we believe, from

Mr. Preston.

And by doing it this way, by subpoenaing the Sargeant

family members and Sargeant Marine, which is not even really

relevant here, we still have to get Mr. Preston involved. And

again, we're a nonparty. It's extremely burdensome.

And we can go through, I'm happy to go through the

individual requests that they asked for, but they are asking

for things relating to like all documents regarding the

chartering of the vessels. How does that have anything to do

with the issue --

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 11 of 38
 12

THE COURT: Let me interrupt you before you get too

far into the weeds of individual things which you had an

opportunity to address individually but chose to do so

boilerplate. Let me talk about a couple of things.

Number one, you brought up a couple of times that

some of the documents seem to be accessible through other

means. But that's not before me.

Judge Altman authorized this subpoena. And one of

the -- I know from previous cases that one of the factors that

goes into it is whether it's available from other sources, but

the fact that it is available from other sources doesn't

necessarily mean that a subpoena shouldn't be upheld.

But let me ask you specifically about the Sargeant

case that you discussed. If a great majority or at least a

large part of what they're asking for is available in

deposition form from another case and easily accessible, did

you get together with Ms. Barton and Mr. Mullins and say

here's where a bunch of it is, this can save everybody some

costs, before you filed a motion to -- whatever the motion

is -- before you filed this motion?

Did you get together with them to limit the scope of

what's required from you under the subpoena, and tell them

where they could find those things easily?

MR. WERTMAN: We did do that, your Honor.

Absolutely. It was the first conversation that I had where I

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 12 of 38
 13

explained to them this very issue, that there is a voluminous

set of documents, exhibits, sworn deposition testimony for

days that go to this first defense that they seek discovery

on. But we couldn't help them with that because I'm not a

party -- my clients are not parties to that action, so we're

not entitled to those subpoenas. Which are also, by the way,

confidential and protective and marked under protective order

in that case.

If we had those documents, we would have. We did

direct them to seek those documents from Harry Sargeant, III.

And I even agreed that if there were documents that our

clients produced in that case through subpoenas or otherwise,

that we would produce those documents. But they wouldn't

agree that that fully satisfies the subpoenas.

So --

THE COURT: Well, the fact that it wouldn't fully

satisfy, if it partially satisfied, at least that would

greatly reduce your burden.

But let me ask for a response from Ms. Barton and

Mr. Mullins. They say that this is overwhelmingly burdensome,

that you have easy access to this information from other

sources.

What's your response to that?

MS. BARTON: Good afternoon, your Honor. This is Ana

Barton.

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 13 of 38
 14

So, your Honor, just to begin, as your Honor noted,

the first time that we received any of the objections from the

Berger Singerman group of clients was when they filed their

motion for protective order.

There was absolutely no conferral as to this specific

request.

And to kind of walk through the history here a little

bit more than what Mr. Wertman provided, our subpoenas were

for 75 requests which Judge Altman, in his order, said were

not unduly burdensome and he approved them.

As part of that first conversation that we had with

Mr. Wertman, he raised the fact that there were 75 requests,

could we narrow them? And as part of that conversation, we

did narrow them to 16 requests.

Now, in that first conversation, Mr. Wertman did

describe to us these depositions and some productions in that

other case of Daniel Hall vs. Harry Sargeant, III.

But here's the problem, your Honor. First, the

discovery there would only be responsive to one of the

first -- or the first of the two defenses that are described

on our slide, on page 3 of our slides.

So from what we understand, the depositions go into

the circumstances of the exchange of information. But that

would not shed light on any of the wrongful conduct by Ruperti

that led to the need for LAIL and the Sargeant family to sue

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 14 of 38
 15

Ruperti, which is exactly what we need to prove as part of our

public policy defense in the underlying action.

So even if that were a viable first step, it still

wouldn't cover the 16 document requests that are in our

subpoena.

But more importantly, what was left out is that that

offer was made to us contingent on us never asking them for

more documents. And when we supplied the reduced subpoena

requests, down to 16, we asked are the documents and the

testimony you're referring to going to be responsive to these

16 requests? And we never got a response.

The first thing we heard back was when we got this

motion for protective order filed. After we gave them two

enlargements of time that we didn't oppose so that they could

do the analysis to tell us is the discovery you're referring

to going to cover what we're requesting?

Your Honor, since we fully briefed this motion, we've

also learned -- there is more information I would like to

share with you that we recently learned.

The fact is that there is a single sever, the

Sargeant family sever, if you will, located in Florida, that

has all of these documents.

It has the LAIL documents. We've learned that even

though LAIL is technically an Isle of Man entity, it's really

just a shell corporation that's run by the Sargeant family,

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 15 of 38
 16

and all of the documents are here in Florida.

So the fact that Berger Singerman's clients are

trying to point us to another, you know, get these documents

from another source, as your Honor already noted, under 1782,

there is no requirement for us to do that. 

We absolutely can get these documents directly from

these Florida discovery targets.

But additionally, they are giving us a run-around.

And they're doing the same thing by saying get the documents

from Harry Sargeant, III that we already produced. That's

still giving us the run-around.

At the end of the day, they are the ones that have

control over all of these documents.

So another thing that we've done to try to meet them

halfway with their blanket assertions that this is unduly

burdensome and overbroad which, as your Honor said, they are

just boilerplate statements that they are standing by. We

still haven't really heard how they are overbroad and we did

reduce the time and the scope of the subpoenas. And, we have

provided them search terms.

Running those search terms on that server will reduce

the burden here. I mean, there is no need to have two sets of

lawyers review for relevancy -- I mean, sorry, not relevancy,

but responsiveness and privilege. That's not necessary.

It's also not necessary for them to host the entire

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 16 of 38
 17

Sargeant server on a secondary database to then run the

searches.

We know for a fact, as has just been described by

Mr. Wertman, that they have already made productions of some

of these documents in other cases. I have not heard that they

had to incur these costs to get that done.

So there is -- these are all artificial hurdles and

kind of kitchen sink objections that are being thrown our way

because they want an all-or-nothing approach here.

THE COURT: Let me ask, who controls the single

server that you referenced that has all the documents you're

looking for? You said it's in Florida, but who has it?

MS. BARTON: By understanding is that all of Berger

Singerman's clients that he's representing today have access

to it. Everybody, except for Harry Sargeant, III, who

originally did have access but then there was a family feud in

2012/2013, and his access was cut off.

Which is actually another important wrinkle for your

Honor, because Harry Sargeant, III only has what has been

produced to him in the litigation. So he's -- that goes back

to Berger Singerman's clients giving us the run-around here.

They are the ones, collectively, who have access to

this server. It's not just Sargeant Marine Inc. It's all of

the individuals, and there is only a single server.

THE COURT: All right. So Berger Singerman and

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 17 of 38
 18

several individual nonparties have access to the server. And

everything you're looking for is on that server and you have

provided search terms and you have narrowed the subpoenas, is

that your request -- is that what you're telling me?

MS. BARTON: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And that instead of working with you,

Berger Singerman led you along and then filed this motion?

MS. BARTON: Exactly, your Honor. And actually, we

learned about the single server in Florida recently. But --

your summary is right on point.

THE COURT: And I assume you would disagree with

their statement that finding all these things is going to be

well into the six figures and that's not reasonable.

MS. BARTON: Yes, your Honor. In their original

motion, they gave -- they just spit out the number $100,000 to

produce these documents, with no back-up.

In our response, we attacked that. And in the reply,

they gave a breakdown of what these hosting costs on a

different sever, review time -- you know, there is no need to

expend $20,000 on just doing an initial search term, to run

the initial search terms to find out what volume of documents

are we even talking about.

We've tried to work with them. We've sent them the

search terms before we even filed our opposition. We said

here's search terms, will you withdraw your motion so that we

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 18 of 38
 19

can work together on this? And it was rejected. So here we

are.

I mean, we've been trying to be reasonable with them.

We didn't have to reduce the scope of the subpoena.

Judge Altman in his order said that our 75 requests were -- he

approved them.

He didn't find them unduly burdensome or unreasonable

given what we're seeking to -- the purpose of the discovery

that we're seeking.

THE COURT: Got it.

All right. Mr. Wertman, they have narrowed their

requests significantly, they've given you search terms to find

them, it's all in one spot, you have access to this spot and

there is no reason to have, for example, multiple lawyers at

$750 an hour reviewing everything.

I have to tell you pretty much that what they said

sounds reasonable.

What's your response?

MR. WERTMAN: Judge, we disagree. First of all,

Judge Altman approved the petition on an ex parte basis.

Number two, in terms of the meet and confer, that's a

fluid situation where we had to go back and forth. I had to

have conference calls with Andrew Preston and our client Dan

Sargeant to figure out what exactly are they looking for. 

There are 16 requests. They include subparts and

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 19 of 38
 20

they are extremely overbroad.

They have not even obtained the documents which they

admittedly were told existed in the pending case, the other

pending case before Judge Altman. I did not hear from

opposing counsel that Mr. Wertman told us to obtain those

documents, and we did.

So even as we speak right now, they still haven't

even gotten those deposition transcripts or exhibits in the

other case, which is quite alarming.

THE COURT: No. What they said was they offered to

do that. You said that -- they said they would do that, but

also that that wouldn't cover everything, and you said that

you would not produce anything else. That that was a

condition of getting them onto those documents, that you

wouldn't -- they had to agree not to request anything else,

which they're not going to do, right?

MR. WERTMAN: That was the proposal we were

discussing and they rejected it. But my point is, Judge, that

even now they still haven't even gotten those documents.

So do they have a real need to get those documents to

support those defenses? One would think that they would have

obtained those other documents which I pointed them to

originally.

Now --

THE COURT: But again, they are not required to go to

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 20 of 38
 21

other places, are they? They have subpoenaed you --

MR. WERTMAN: They want the documents -- we don't

have those documents, Judge. I don't have the deposition

transcripts and exhibits that I identi--

THE COURT: They don't have to go elsewhere. If

you've got the documents and they subpoenaed you and that's

been authorized by Judge Altman, it's not an answer from you

to say you can go somewhere else, is it?

MR. WERTMAN: It's not an answer, but that's not the

documents I'm talking about.

The subset of documents I'm specifically talking

about are the deposition transcripts that were taken in the

other case. We don't have those.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. What about --

MR. WERTMAN: Mr. Preston will absolutely, 100

percent, need to be involved in reviewing documents.

I wouldn't be able to tell you if I saw a responsive

document or I didn't. Because these are document requests

that, on their face, even as amended by Novoship, are facially

overbroad.

Some of the requests date back to 19 years ago, 2001.

Those are document requests Nos. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 8.

Some of the requests date back over 14 years ago,

2004, 2005, and 2006. Those are document requests Nos. 5, 6

and 10.

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 21 of 38
 22

And even if they narrowed the temporal scope of those

documents, again, I could read a document and come to the

conclusion that it's not responsive because I wasn't involved

in the transaction, I don't know anything about the

transaction; Mr. Preston does.

He would need to be involved, having access to a

review platform to review the documents and to let us know if

they're responsive.

After that, we would have the right to put them on a

privilege log if there is a valid claim of privilege or

confidentiality. So that's where my firm would need to be

involved.

Mr. Preston doesn't know U.S. law on privilege. So

both firms would need to be involved.

And in order to run the searches, Judge, it's not

simply pushing a button and running the searches. And the

searches that they propose were also very overbroad.

So we could run the searches and I can tell them how

many search results are, but if we're going to actually do

this correctly so there is no complaints about it later on and

there is no motions for sanctions when they don't get what

they say they need, then it has to be done properly with an

ESI protocol that's done in every single case.

This is no different. The server would have to be

hosted. Our firm doesn't have the capability of hosting that

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 22 of 38
 23

server because it's 1.2 terabytes. That's 1,270 gigabytes.

And then we would have vendor fees, which we laid out

on pages 3 and 4 of our reply, Docket Entry 13.

So the initial startup to do this is about $20,000.

And that is just to get the server online so searches can be

run.

And I don't know how they expect us to do a shortcut.

This isn't the old days where people have paper files and they

could open their desk cabinet and pull out the file on

Novoship. It's quite different.

And what's further complicating is is there are

multiple companies within the Sargeant server. So --

THE COURT: You know --

MR. WERTMAN: -- we're trying to work with them,

Judge. We are not abating our discovery obligations.

And I'm sorry the Court has that impression. But it

is not what we tried to do.

We had to consult with Mr. Preston to gather -- to

gain his understanding of these transactions -- which really

are not even really relevant for what they are seeking.

THE COURT: Well, look --

MR. WERTMAN: I'm sorry, Judge. Go ahead.

THE COURT: Yeah. You basically made an argument

that things are much harder today when we have computers and

search terms and e-discovery. My experience is it's exactly

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 23 of 38
 24

the opposite.

If they were asking you to have lawyers and

paralegals scattered all over the world, running around

looking in filing cabinets, finding things and reviewing them

and sending all that, it would be overly burdensome.

But they say everything is on one server and they are

offering you search terms that would identify the documents

that are relevant.

How is that more difficult, costly and time consuming

than the old days when somebody would go open up a filing

cabinet? It's much easier, isn't it?

MR. WERTMAN: We believe it's more costly. But it's

a moot point, your Honor. Who is going to pay for this? Like

I indicated, my client has to pay a $16 million criminal fine.

And this is going to be time consuming and expensive. And

we've offered to lay this out in affidavits and declarations.

And it's not simply run a search. I would tell you,

Judge, we have been involved in a lot of document intensive

cases and they run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We don't think this is going to get to that, but a

$100,000 estimate, with multiple lawyers working on this and

processing documents and hosting fees, you know, it's going to

get close. And it's not a simple task and it's also going to

take time.

And we didn't have that understanding fully when we

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 24 of 38
 25

filed our motion, when we were in the meet and confer process.

But it is a very, very real cost that our clients,

nonparties, are going to have to bear that we think should be

considered under Rule 26(b) in terms of proportionality.

THE COURT: Ms. Barton, are you willing to pay

reasonable costs, right?

MS. BARTON: Your Honor, reasonable costs. Now one

of our concerns, especially hearing Mr. Wertman today, is that

they are creating these artificial expensive hurdles that

aren't necessary.

So we realize that if there is a reasonable,

necessary cost, and something that we discuss in advance, we

are not, you know -- and stating on the record and there is

case law saying that a nonparty producing documents under a

subpoena and then sending a $50,000 bill is unreasonable

because you have to discuss these things in advance.

But the whole purpose of search terms is let's figure

out the volume of hits, of documents that are hit with that,

with those search terms, and then let's take it in stages.

Let's figure out what's necessary. We don't know if

we're talking about 100 documents or if we're talking a much

larger volume.

And we've tried to have that conversation through

meet and conferrals and, your Honor, with we've been met with

no responses.

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 25 of 38
 26

THE COURT: Well, you're both presumptively

reasonable lawyers from very good firms that have very good

reputations that deal with big issues involving e-discovery

all the time.

It's certainly not sufficient to simply say

e-discovery is too expensive, we can't do it. Reasonable

lawyers should be able to get together and discuss it.

And if they can convince you that a search that you

want to do or review process is going to be $10 million,

you're not going to do it.

But if the lawyers can get together and say maybe you

don't need two or three levels of review, or whatever it's

going to be, so my question to you was are you willing to pay

reasonable costs?

And I understand your response is yes, but what they

are suggesting is not reasonable. Is that your response?

MS. BARTON: Yes, your Honor. My response is that

there will need to be further conversations on defining the

scope of reasonable. But absolutely we understand that there

are costs that are involved that we would be paying.

THE COURT: And are you willing to talk with

Mr. Wertman, and once you establish, for example, the universe

of documents that exist, maybe you can limit that to what you

actually need and come up with first a search, and then a

production, that can be done at a reasonable cost. You're

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 26 of 38
 27

willing to work with Mr. Wertman on that?

MS. BARTON: Yes. And in fact that's what we

proposed to Mr. Wertman before filing our opposition, to try

and get us to that stage before having to come before your

Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Wertman, it seems to me

that they are willing to work with you to limit costs and come

up with a reasonable production that will not break anyone's

bank, but they will pay reasonable costs.

Do you have any problem with that?

MR. WERTMAN: No, I don't, your Honor.

I think what would be helpful is we can get together

next week, our firm has an ESI team, the head of the ESI team

is also an attorney. There are attorneys in my firm that know

ESI better than I do, and we may need to get Mr. Preston

involved as well, because like I said, if you showed me a

document that said, you know, Ruperti on it, I wouldn't know

if it was linked to this or not.

We're happy to get together with them immediately and

figure out how to do this in the most cost effective way.

They are entitled to the documents, but it's just

going to be, you know, a scope and cost issue, I think, from

our perspective.

THE COURT: Which is best handled by lawyers getting

together. 

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 27 of 38
 28

And like I said, if you come up with a universe of

documents that is way too big and a lot of it is going to be

unresponsive because the search terms weren't right, then

limit the search terms.

If it's unreasonably costly, understanding that

Novoship is going to pay at least part of the cost, if it's

unreasonably costly, then you are going to have to figure out

another way to do it.

And if there are lots of responsive doubts that exist

somewhere else already, in the form of deposition, for

example, then maybe it makes sense for them to do it.

But you guys need to get together and discuss these

factors and talk about reasonable production and reasonable

costs for production and work that out.

Do you need me to set a deadline for you?

MR. WERTMAN: We're happy to get together with them

as early as next week, Judge. I don't believe you need to set

a deadline.

Maybe, if you want to, respectfully, your Honor, if

you want to set a status conference for sometime in November.

Whatever pleases the Court.

THE COURT: I mean, I prefer not to. If you and,

Ms. Barton, do you think we need a deadline?

It sounds like you were working together and then the

motion got filed.

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 28 of 38
 29

If I can trust you guys to work together, generally,

discovery should be self-regulating. There shouldn't be a

need for me to be involved and there shouldn't be a need for a

status.

But if you need me to be involved, I will be.

Ms. Barton, do you think we need to set either a

deadline or a status?

MS. BARTON: Your Honor, I think that we can have

that initial conversation early next week and we can come up

with a plan.

But I was going to ask that to the extent we can't

come up with a reasonable plan with, you know, with good faith

efforts, that maybe we can bring it back to your Honor's

attention, only if necessary.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. BARTON: For example -- and not to do this on the

Court's clock, but I think that there are some, like, you

know, this ESI protocol and having a second, you know,

Mr. Preston spending time, I think we can work this out

offline. 

But in the event that we need your Honor to make some

rulings, I would just say, you know, we will work as best as

we can, and only if we need your Honor to weigh in will we

request another hearing.

THE COURT: That sounds reasonable to me and that's

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 29 of 38
 30

the way I would like to do it.

Unless you guys have already decided that you're not

going to be able to work together and work this out -- which

is what you should be doing -- and you need me to do it for

you, then what I would like you to do is deny without

prejudice, require you guys to confer, work it out.

I am still here if you need to bring it back to me.

But I probably will be entering my discovery order in

this case so that if it does come back to me, you will have

some guidance about, you know, the way you should bring

discovery matters to me.

So I think I have already made my feelings clear

about that in general early on. But there are a lot of

specifics in my order, including page limits.

We will get a written order out, but I'm going to

deny the motion without prejudice and require you guys to

confer and try to establish production at a reasonable cost.

And if you need to bring it back to me, you can.

At this point I'm not going to set a deadline or a

status conference. If either party thinks one of those is

helpful, you can just contact Keith and we'll do that.

Okay?

MS. BARTON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. WERTMAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right.

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 30 of 38
 31

Thank you.

Court is in recess.

(Proceedings were adjourned.)

* * * 

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 31 of 38
 32

TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATION 

I, Judith M. Wolff, a Certified Realtime Reporter,

with offices in Smyrna, Georgia, do hereby certify:

That I transcribed the proceedings digitally-recorded

on October 30, 2020, in the matter of In Re: Novoship (UK)

Limited vs. Harry Sargeant, Jr., et al.;

That "indiscernible" designations are the result of

technological limitations beyond my control;

That said audio recording of the proceedings were

reduced to typewritten form by me; and that the foregoing

transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceedings to

the best of my skill and ability.

Date: December 13, 2020 

 s/ JUDITH M. WOLFF, CERTIFIED REALTIME REPORTER

 Signature of Transcriber 

TELEPHONIC HEARING TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITALLY-RECORDED AUDIO

 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

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 32 of 38
 MR. MULLINS: [1] 2/8

 MR. WERTMAN: [18] 2/10 2/22 2/25

 3/3 4/20 9/11 12/24 19/19 20/17 21/2

 21/9 21/15 23/14 23/22 24/12 27/11

 28/16 30/24

 MS. BARTON: [12] 2/6 13/24 17/13

 18/5 18/8 18/14 25/7 26/17 27/2 29/8

 29/16 30/23

 THE COURT: [29] 2/2 2/14 2/24 3/2

 4/4 9/8 12/1 13/16 17/10 17/25 18/6

 18/11 19/10 20/10 20/25 21/5 21/14

 23/13 23/21 23/23 25/5 26/1 26/21

 27/6 27/24 28/22 29/15 29/25 30/25

$

$10 [1] 26/9

$100,000 [2] 18/15 24/21

$16 [3] 5/12 5/18 24/14

$20,000 [2] 18/20 23/4

$50,000 [1] 25/15

$750 [1] 19/15

0

0:20-mc-60876-RKA [1] 1/2

1

1,270 [1] 23/1

1-1 [1] 10/14

1.2 [1] 23/1

10 [2] 3/4 21/25

100 [2] 21/15 25/21

12 [1] 3/22

12:00 [1] 7/9

13 [3] 3/4 23/3 32/18

14 [1] 21/23

16 [5] 14/14 15/4 15/9 15/11 19/25

1782 [3] 3/20 11/11 16/4

19 [1] 21/21

2

20-60876-MC-Hunt [1] 2/2

2001 [1] 21/21

2004 [1] 21/24

2005 [1] 21/24

2006 [1] 21/24

2012/2013 [1] 17/17

2013 [1] 17/17

2018 [1] 7/24

2020 [3] 1/7 32/9 32/18

26 [4] 3/19 4/1 5/16 25/4

3

30 [2] 1/7 32/9

38 [2] 1/10 10/15

4

4.1 [1] 21/22

4.2 [1] 21/22

4.3 [1] 21/22

4.4 [1] 21/22

45 [1] 3/19

7

75 [3] 14/9 14/12 19/5

A

abating [1] 23/15

ability [1] 32/16

able [3] 21/17 26/7 30/3

about [17] 4/23 4/25 9/16 12/4 12/13

 18/9 18/22 21/10 21/12 21/14 22/4

 22/20 23/4 25/21 28/13 30/10 30/13

absolutely [5] 12/25 14/5 16/6 21/15

 26/19

access [11] 4/1 9/8 9/9 13/21 17/14

 17/16 17/17 17/22 18/1 19/13 22/6

accessible [4] 3/17 7/17 12/6 12/16

accommodating [1] 2/25

accurate [1] 32/15

acknowledge [1] 11/10

acted [1] 10/5

action [3] 11/11 13/5 15/2

actions [1] 3/20

actual [1] 5/4

actually [5] 10/20 17/18 18/8 22/19

 26/24

addition [1] 8/11

additionally [1] 16/8

address [2] 3/22 12/3

adequate [1] 11/2

adjourned [1] 31/4

admittedly [1] 20/3

advance [2] 25/12 25/16

affidavits [1] 24/16

affirmative [1] 8/9

afoul [1] 3/18

After [2] 15/13 22/9

afternoon [4] 2/22 2/24 7/9 13/24

again [6] 4/8 4/15 11/9 11/20 20/25

 22/2

against [2] 6/13 10/7

ago [3] 5/15 21/21 21/23

agree [3] 7/19 13/14 20/15

agreed [2] 5/12 13/11

ahead [2] 6/2 23/22

al [3] 1/9 7/23 32/10

alarming [1] 20/9

all [41] 

allegations [1] 10/7

alleged [2] 8/10 9/17

along [1] 18/7

already [8] 8/17 9/6 16/4 16/10 17/4

 28/10 30/2 30/12

also [12] 2/8 2/17 7/15 7/21 8/4

 13/6 15/18 16/25 20/12 22/17 24/23

 27/14

Altman [7] 7/24 12/8 14/9 19/5 19/20

 20/4 21/7

am [1] 30/7

amend [1] 3/11

amended [1] 21/19

American [2] 6/5 6/8

Ana [3] 1/19 2/6 13/24

analysis [1] 15/15

Andrew [2] 6/4 19/23

Annette [1] 8/5

announce [1] 2/4

another [7] 12/16 16/3 16/4 16/14

 17/18 28/8 29/24

answer [2] 21/7 21/9

any [4] 6/11 14/2 14/24 27/10

anyone's [1] 27/8

anything [4] 11/24 20/13 20/15 22/4

appearance [2] 1/18 2/4

applicable [1] 4/12

applicant [3] 2/7 3/7 3/21

applicant's [1] 7/8

applies [1] 3/19

appreciate [1] 2/23

approach [1] 17/9

approved [3] 14/10 19/6 19/20

are [63] 

aren't [2] 3/15 25/10

argument [1] 23/23

around [5] 7/9 16/8 16/11 17/21 24/3

artificial [2] 17/7 25/9

ask [5] 5/19 12/13 13/19 17/10 29/11

asked [2] 11/22 15/9

asking [4] 11/22 12/15 15/7 24/2

assert [2] 11/1 11/3

asserted [2] 4/21 11/4

assertions [1] 16/15

assume [1] 18/11

attached [1] 8/7

attacked [1] 18/17

attended [1] 9/15

attending [1] 8/14

attention [1] 29/14

attorney [2] 6/14 27/14

Attorney's [1] 5/14

attorneys [1] 27/14

audio [1] 32/13

authorized [2] 12/8 21/7

available [3] 12/10 12/11 12/15

B

back [11] 11/9 15/12 17/20 18/16

 19/22 21/21 21/23 29/13 30/7 30/9

 30/18

back-up [1] 18/16

balance [2] 3/24 4/22

balancing [2] 3/23 11/12

bank [1] 27/9

Barton [8] 1/19 2/6 12/17 13/19

 13/25 25/5 28/23 29/6

based [1] 11/6

basically [1] 23/23

basis [3] 5/2 11/3 19/20

be [47] 

bear [1] 25/3

because [12] 4/12 8/24 10/1 13/4

 17/9 17/19 21/18 22/3 23/1 25/16

 27/16 28/3

been [7] 5/13 17/3 17/19 19/3 21/7

 24/18 25/24

before [11] 1/14 11/11 12/1 12/7

 12/19 12/20 18/24 20/4 27/3 27/4

 27/4

begin [1] 14/1

behalf [4] 2/6 2/8 2/11 3/14

being [2] 8/11 17/8

believe [5] 4/21 7/24 11/15 24/12

 28/17

benefit [1] 4/3

BERGER [10] 1/21 2/10 2/12 5/24 14/3

 16/2 17/13 17/21 17/25 18/7

best [4] 5/25 27/24 29/22 32/16

better [2] 8/21 27/15

between [1] 6/15

beyond [1] 32/12

big [2] 26/3 28/2

bill [1] 25/15

bit [1] 14/8

blanket [1] 16/15

boilerplate [6] 4/7 4/14 4/19 4/25

 12/4 16/17

both [3] 5/8 22/14 26/1

break [1] 27/8

breakdown [1] 18/18

briefed [1] 15/17

bring [4] 29/13 30/7 30/10 30/18

broad [1] 4/16

brought [1] 12/5

bunch [1] 12/18

burden [7] 4/2 5/8 5/17 5/20 11/12

 13/18 16/22

burdensome [8] 3/13 4/16 11/20 13/20

 14/10 16/16 19/7 24/5

Burford [1] 8/18

button [1] 22/16

C

cabinet [2] 23/9 24/11

cabinets [1] 24/4

call [1] 8/14

called [2] 2/1 7/22

Calling [1] 2/2

calls [1] 19/23

can [27] 4/18 4/19 6/2 6/4 9/9 10/12

 10/13 11/21 12/18 16/6 19/1 21/8

 22/18 23/5 26/8 26/11 26/23 26/25

 27/12 29/1 29/8 29/9 29/13 29/19

 29/23 30/18 30/21

can't [2] 26/6 29/11

capability [1] 22/25

Capital [1] 8/18

case [23] 1/2 2/2 7/21 7/25 8/1 8/3

 8/6 8/18 9/5 9/12 10/10 12/14 12/16

 13/8 13/12 14/17 20/3 20/4 20/9

 21/13 22/23 25/14 30/9

cases [3] 12/9 17/5 24/19

certainly [2] 9/21 26/5

CERTIFICATION [1] 32/3

Certified [3] 1/24 32/6 32/20

certify [1] 32/7

cetera [2] 10/9 10/9

chance [2] 7/7 7/9

chartering [1] 11/24

chose [1] 12/3

circumstances [1] 14/23

Civil [1] 6/22

claim [3] 7/11 10/24 22/10

claimants [1] 10/19

claims [2] 3/16 11/6

clear [1] 30/12

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 33 of 38 33
C

client [5] 5/6 5/17 10/10 19/23

 24/14

clients [14] 3/9 5/6 5/8 5/11 8/1

 8/11 9/14 13/5 13/12 14/3 16/2 17/14

 17/21 25/2

clock [1] 29/17

close [1] 24/23

collectively [2] 3/10 17/22

come [8] 22/2 26/24 27/4 27/7 28/1

 29/9 29/12 30/9

companies [2] 3/15 23/12

company [1] 6/9

complaints [1] 22/20

complicates [1] 6/3

complicating [1] 23/11

complied [1] 11/14

comply [3] 5/1 5/22 9/13

computers [1] 23/24

concerns [1] 25/8

conclusion [1] 22/3

condition [1] 20/14

conduct [2] 10/2 14/24

confer [4] 19/21 25/1 30/6 30/17

conference [3] 19/23 28/20 30/20

conferral [1] 14/5

conferrals [1] 25/24

confidential [1] 13/7

confidentiality [2] 6/23 22/11

conjunction [1] 4/22

connection [1] 5/19

consider [1] 5/19

considered [1] 25/4

consult [1] 23/18

consuming [3] 7/5 24/9 24/15

contact [1] 30/21

contemplation [1] 3/16

contingent [1] 15/7

control [2] 16/13 32/12

controls [1] 17/10

conversation [6] 12/25 14/11 14/13

 14/15 25/23 29/9

conversations [1] 26/18

convince [1] 26/8

copies [2] 8/23 9/13

corporation [1] 15/25

correctly [1] 22/20

cost [8] 5/25 25/2 25/12 26/25 27/20

 27/22 28/6 30/17

costly [4] 24/9 24/12 28/5 28/7

costs [11] 5/23 12/19 17/6 18/18

 25/6 25/7 26/14 26/20 27/7 27/9

 28/14

could [9] 2/4 3/17 11/14 12/23 14/13

 15/14 22/2 22/18 23/9

couldn't [1] 13/4

counsel [4] 1/18 2/4 7/8 20/5

couple [2] 12/4 12/5

COURT [6] 1/1 2/1 3/24 23/16 28/21

 31/2

Court's [1] 29/17

cover [3] 15/4 15/16 20/12

creating [1] 25/9

criminal [2] 5/12 24/14

crjudywolff [1] 1/25

cumbersome [1] 7/5

currently [1] 3/16

cut [1] 17/17

D

Dan [2] 7/14 19/23

Daniel [6] 2/11 7/14 7/23 8/4 8/18

 14/17

database [1] 17/1

date [3] 21/21 21/23 32/18

day [1] 16/12

days [4] 9/4 13/3 23/8 24/10

deadline [5] 28/15 28/18 28/23 29/7

 30/19

deal [1] 26/3

deceive [1] 10/20

December [1] 32/18

decided [2] 11/1 30/2

declaration [1] 10/12

declarations [1] 24/16

defendants [3] 1/10 1/21 10/22

defended [1] 9/16

defense [13] 7/13 8/9 9/22 9/24 10/4

 10/16 10/17 10/24 11/1 11/3 11/4

 13/3 15/2

defenses [4] 7/12 9/25 14/20 20/21

defining [1] 26/18

demand [1] 3/14

demands [1] 3/8

deny [2] 30/5 30/16

Department [1] 5/10

deposed [4] 8/3 8/6 8/11 8/13

deposition [7] 9/14 12/16 13/2 20/8

 21/3 21/12 28/10

depositions [6] 8/7 8/20 9/3 9/15

 14/16 14/22

describe [1] 14/16

described [2] 14/20 17/3

designations [1] 32/11

desk [1] 23/9

did [18] 3/11 4/7 7/7 7/19 8/24 9/8

 9/21 10/20 12/16 12/21 12/24 13/9

 14/14 14/15 16/18 17/16 20/4 20/6

didn't [8] 4/5 7/9 11/2 15/14 19/4

 19/7 21/18 24/25

different [3] 18/19 22/24 23/10

difficult [1] 24/9

digitally [1] 32/8

digitally-recorded [1] 32/8

direct [1] 13/10

directly [1] 16/6

director [1] 8/3

disagree [2] 18/11 19/19

disclosure [3] 7/15 8/10 10/1

discovery [23] 1/13 3/6 3/25 4/3

 5/20 7/11 7/13 9/5 9/23 10/6 10/16

 13/3 14/19 15/15 16/7 19/8 23/15

 23/25 26/3 26/6 29/2 30/8 30/11

discuss [4] 25/12 25/16 26/7 28/12

discussed [1] 12/14

discussing [1] 20/18

discussions [1] 9/16

dismissed [2] 10/11 11/7

disputes [1] 6/14

district [5] 1/1 1/1 4/11 5/14 7/23

divert [1] 10/20

DIVISION [1] 1/2

do [34] 

Docket [5] 3/3 3/4 3/22 10/14 23/3

document [9] 7/1 15/4 21/18 21/18

 21/22 21/24 22/2 24/18 27/17

documents [48] 

does [3] 11/24 22/5 30/9

doesn't [4] 6/21 12/11 22/13 22/25

doing [5] 6/2 11/17 16/9 18/20 30/4

dollars [1] 24/19

don't [18] 2/18 4/13 5/9 6/11 9/5

 9/20 21/2 21/3 21/5 21/13 22/4 22/21

 23/7 24/20 25/20 26/12 27/11 28/17

done [6] 11/13 16/14 17/6 22/22

 22/23 26/25

doubts [1] 28/9

down [1] 15/9

E

e-discovery [4] 5/20 23/25 26/3 26/6

early [3] 28/17 29/9 30/13

easier [1] 24/11

easily [3] 7/17 12/16 12/23

Eastern [1] 5/14

easy [2] 9/19 13/21

Ed [1] 2/8

Edward [1] 1/19

effective [1] 27/20

effectively [1] 10/23

efforts [1] 29/13

either [2] 29/6 30/20

else [4] 20/13 20/15 21/8 28/10

elsewhere [1] 21/5

end [1] 16/12

endeavor [2] 5/1 7/6

English [1] 11/14

enlargements [1] 15/14

entered [1] 4/13

entering [1] 30/8

entire [2] 9/3 16/25

entitled [2] 13/6 27/21

entity [3] 6/6 8/16 15/24

Entry [5] 3/4 3/4 3/22 10/14 23/3

ESI [5] 22/23 27/13 27/13 27/15

 29/18

especially [1] 25/8

Esq [3] 1/19 1/19 1/21

establish [2] 26/22 30/17

establishing [1] 7/14

estimate [1] 24/21

estimated [1] 5/23

estimates [1] 5/25

et [5] 1/9 7/23 10/9 10/9 32/10

et al [1] 7/23

et cetera [2] 10/9 10/9

even [14] 11/18 13/11 15/3 15/23

 18/22 18/24 20/2 20/7 20/8 20/19

 20/19 21/19 22/1 23/20

event [2] 6/11 29/21

events [1] 5/21

every [1] 22/23

everybody [2] 12/18 17/15

everything [7] 2/19 4/16 6/18 18/2

 19/15 20/12 24/6

ex [1] 19/20

exactly [4] 15/1 18/8 19/24 23/25

example [4] 19/14 26/22 28/11 29/16

except [1] 17/15

exchange [1] 14/23

exhibit [1] 10/14

exhibits [6] 8/7 8/20 8/24 13/2 20/8

 21/4

exist [2] 26/23 28/9

existed [1] 20/3

exists [1] 8/17

expect [1] 23/7

expend [1] 18/20

expense [2] 4/3 5/17

expensive [4] 7/6 24/15 25/9 26/6

experience [1] 23/25

explained [2] 5/2 13/1

explains [2] 4/23 10/15

extent [1] 29/11

extraordinary [1] 5/7

extremely [3] 11/8 11/20 20/1

F

face [1] 21/19

facially [1] 21/19

fact [9] 10/19 10/21 12/11 13/16

 14/12 15/20 16/2 17/3 27/2

factors [5] 3/25 5/16 11/12 12/9

 28/13

facts [1] 3/6

faith [1] 29/12

familiar [1] 5/9

family [8] 8/2 8/12 10/6 11/18 14/25

 15/21 15/25 17/16

far [1] 12/2

Federal [2] 3/18 6/21

feelings [1] 30/12

fees [2] 23/2 24/22

feud [1] 17/16

few [1] 10/25

figure [5] 19/24 25/17 25/20 27/20

 28/7

figures [1] 18/13

file [1] 23/9

filed [9] 3/21 12/19 12/20 14/3

 15/13 18/7 18/24 25/1 28/25

files [1] 23/8

filing [3] 24/4 24/10 27/3

financially [1] 5/8

find [4] 12/23 18/21 19/7 19/12

finding [2] 18/12 24/4

fine [1] 24/14

fines [1] 5/12

firm [9] 4/10 6/20 7/18 8/2 9/1

 22/11 22/25 27/13 27/14

firms [2] 22/14 26/2

first [16] 2/20 7/13 8/9 10/25 12/25

 13/3 14/2 14/11 14/15 14/18 14/20

 14/20 15/3 15/12 19/19 26/24

five [1] 4/7

FLORIDA [7] 1/1 7/24 15/21 16/1 16/7

 17/12 18/9

fluid [1] 19/22

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 34 of 38 34
F

followed [1] 11/13

foregoing [1] 32/14

foreign [5] 7/12 9/25 10/18 10/22

 11/2

form [3] 12/16 28/10 32/14

FORT [1] 1/2

forth [3] 3/3 3/6 19/22

found [1] 10/13

Friday [1] 1/7

front [1] 4/10

full [1] 10/24

fully [4] 13/14 13/16 15/17 24/25

funds [1] 10/3

further [3] 10/15 23/11 26/18

G

gain [1] 23/19

gather [1] 23/18

gave [4] 5/24 15/13 18/15 18/18

general [2] 5/20 30/13

generally [1] 29/1

Georgia [1] 32/7

get [27] 5/25 6/7 7/7 7/9 11/5 11/19

 12/1 12/17 12/21 16/3 16/6 16/9 17/6

 20/20 22/21 23/5 24/20 24/23 26/7

 26/11 27/4 27/12 27/15 27/19 28/12

 28/16 30/15

getting [2] 20/14 27/24

gigabytes [1] 23/1

give [2] 4/14 9/21

given [2] 19/8 19/12

giving [3] 16/8 16/11 17/21

gmail.com [1] 1/25

go [15] 2/19 3/24 6/2 8/8 10/22

 11/21 11/21 13/3 14/22 19/22 20/25

 21/5 21/8 23/22 24/10

goes [5] 9/23 11/9 11/12 12/10 17/20

going [27] 6/18 6/19 6/24 7/2 7/3

 15/10 15/16 18/12 20/16 22/19 24/13

 24/15 24/20 24/22 24/23 25/3 26/9

 26/10 26/13 27/22 28/2 28/6 28/7

 29/11 30/3 30/15 30/19

good [6] 2/22 2/24 13/24 26/2 26/2

 29/12

got [5] 15/11 15/12 19/10 21/6 28/25

gotten [3] 11/15 20/8 20/19

great [1] 12/14

greatly [1] 13/18

group [2] 5/24 14/3

guess [1] 2/20

guest [1] 8/15

guidance [1] 30/10

guilty [1] 5/12

guys [5] 28/12 29/1 30/2 30/6 30/16

H

had [11] 8/21 11/13 12/2 12/25 13/9

 14/11 17/6 19/22 19/22 20/15 23/18

halfway [1] 16/15

Hall [5] 7/14 7/23 8/18 9/18 14/17

handled [2] 10/8 27/24

happened [1] 5/15

happy [3] 11/21 27/19 28/16

harder [1] 23/24

Harry [15] 1/9 2/11 7/23 8/4 8/12

 8/15 9/1 9/11 9/12 13/10 14/17 16/10

 17/15 17/19 32/10

has [13] 4/10 5/17 15/22 15/23 17/3

 17/11 17/12 17/19 17/19 22/22 23/16

 24/14 27/13

have [66] 

haven't [4] 4/13 16/18 20/7 20/19

having [5] 5/5 10/23 22/6 27/4 29/18

Hawks [1] 8/14

he [7] 6/21 9/1 14/10 14/12 19/5

 19/7 22/6

he's [4] 6/5 6/23 17/14 17/20

head [1] 27/13

hear [2] 2/20 20/4

heard [3] 15/12 16/18 17/5

hearing [5] 1/8 1/13 2/14 25/8 29/24

help [2] 9/20 13/4

helpful [2] 27/12 30/21

here [11] 2/14 4/12 10/12 11/19 14/7

 16/1 16/22 17/9 17/21 19/1 30/7

here's [3] 12/18 14/18 18/25

hereby [1] 32/7

highly [1] 9/17

him [1] 17/20

his [7] 6/19 8/12 8/15 14/9 17/17

 19/5 23/19

history [1] 14/7

hit [1] 25/18

hits [1] 25/18

Honor [30] 2/22 4/20 5/5 5/9 6/3

 7/17 7/21 12/24 13/24 14/1 14/1

 14/18 15/17 16/4 16/16 17/19 18/5

 18/8 18/14 24/13 25/7 25/24 26/17

 27/5 27/11 28/19 29/8 29/21 29/23

 30/23

Honor's [1] 29/13

HONORABLE [1] 1/14

host [2] 6/2 16/25

hosted [1] 22/25

hosting [3] 18/18 22/25 24/22

hour [1] 19/15

how [9] 4/18 4/19 10/8 11/24 16/18

 22/18 23/7 24/9 27/20

however [2] 10/18 11/12

hundreds [1] 24/19

HUNT [2] 1/14 2/2

hurdles [2] 17/7 25/9

I

I'm [11] 7/2 8/25 10/11 11/21 13/4

 21/10 21/11 23/16 23/22 30/15 30/19

i.e [1] 10/19

I.T [1] 8/4

idea [1] 8/21

identi [1] 21/4

identified [1] 7/1

identify [2] 6/24 24/7

identifying [2] 6/17 6/23

III [11] 7/23 8/12 8/15 9/1 9/12

 9/13 13/10 14/17 16/10 17/15 17/19

immediately [1] 27/19

important [1] 17/18

importantly [1] 15/6

impose [1] 5/7

imposed [1] 3/8

impression [1] 23/16

Inc [3] 2/12 5/10 17/23

include [1] 19/25

including [4] 4/1 8/3 10/7 30/14

incur [1] 17/6

independently [1] 9/10

indicated [1] 24/14

indiscernible [1] 32/11

individual [5] 5/4 8/1 11/22 12/2

 18/1

individually [1] 12/3

individuals [2] 6/10 17/24

information [9] 4/2 9/9 9/17 9/18

 11/3 11/6 13/21 14/23 15/18

initial [4] 18/20 18/21 23/4 29/9

initiated [1] 11/11

instead [1] 18/6

intensive [1] 24/18

interest [1] 9/23

interests [1] 3/24

interrupt [2] 4/4 12/1

intimately [1] 6/14

intrusive [1] 3/14

investigation [1] 5/13

Investments [2] 6/6 6/8

involved [16] 6/14 6/19 6/20 6/22

 6/24 11/19 21/16 22/3 22/6 22/12

 22/14 24/18 26/20 27/16 29/3 29/5

involving [1] 26/3

IOTC [1] 8/16

is [105] 

Isle [2] 6/9 15/24

isn't [3] 4/12 23/8 24/11

issue [4] 8/8 11/25 13/1 27/22

issues [3] 4/23 5/6 26/3

it [54] 

it's [35] 

its [3] 4/3 8/9 11/6

J

James [2] 2/12 8/5

Jeffrey [2] 1/21 2/10

joint [2] 6/15 10/7

Jr [4] 1/9 2/11 8/4 32/10

judge [18] 1/14 7/24 7/24 10/25 12/8

 14/9 19/5 19/19 19/20 20/4 20/18

 21/3 21/7 22/15 23/15 23/22 24/18

 28/17

Judge Altman [6] 7/24 12/8 14/9 19/5

 19/20 21/7

judges [1] 4/10

Judith [3] 1/24 32/6 32/20

just [15] 4/14 4/19 5/19 5/25 14/1

 15/25 16/17 17/3 17/23 18/15 18/20

 23/5 27/21 29/22 30/21

Justice [1] 5/10

justified [1] 10/1

K

Keith [1] 30/21

kind [4] 4/7 9/23 14/7 17/8

Kirpatrick [1] 10/13

kitchen [1] 17/8

knew [1] 7/14

know [29] 4/9 4/10 5/9 6/21 7/2 9/5

 9/15 9/16 12/9 16/3 17/3 18/19 22/4

 22/7 22/13 23/7 23/13 24/22 25/13

 25/20 27/14 27/17 27/17 27/22 29/12

 29/18 29/18 29/22 30/10

known [1] 8/5

L

laid [2] 5/20 23/2

LAIL [12] 6/8 6/9 6/12 10/5 10/10

 10/19 10/20 10/20 11/6 14/25 15/23

 15/24

LAIL's [2] 10/7 10/24

large [1] 12/15

larger [1] 25/22

last [1] 7/22

lasted [1] 9/3

later [1] 22/20

Latin [3] 6/5 6/8 6/8

LAUDERDALE [1] 1/2

law [6] 6/21 7/18 8/25 11/14 22/13

 25/14

lawyers [8] 16/23 19/14 24/2 24/21

 26/2 26/7 26/11 27/24

lay [1] 24/16

learned [4] 15/18 15/19 15/23 18/9

least [3] 12/14 13/17 28/6

led [2] 14/25 18/7

left [1] 15/6

lengthy [1] 9/4

less [1] 5/15

let [8] 2/20 4/4 12/1 12/4 12/13

 13/19 17/10 22/7

let's [3] 25/17 25/19 25/20

levels [1] 26/12

liable [1] 10/19

light [1] 14/24

like [14] 4/6 7/10 9/20 11/5 11/8

 11/23 15/18 24/13 27/16 28/1 28/24

 29/17 30/1 30/5

likely [1] 4/3

limit [4] 12/21 26/23 27/7 28/4

limitations [1] 32/12

Limited [5] 1/6 2/3 2/7 6/6 32/10

limits [1] 30/14

linked [1] 27/18

listed [1] 7/22

litigate [2] 10/23 11/7

litigation [3] 5/24 6/13 17/20

little [1] 14/7

LLP [2] 1/20 2/13

loaded [1] 6/18

located [1] 15/21

log [1] 22/10

London [6] 5/7 6/5 6/12 8/22 11/3

 11/14

look [4] 7/1 7/7 7/10 23/21

looking [4] 17/12 18/2 19/24 24/4

looks [2] 4/6 7/10

lot [3] 24/18 28/2 30/13

lots [1] 28/9

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 35 of 38 35
M

MAGISTRATE [1] 1/14

majority [1] 12/14

make [1] 29/21

makes [1] 28/11

Man [2] 6/9 15/24

many [1] 22/19

Maria [1] 1/19

Marine [5] 2/12 5/10 6/10 11/18

 17/23

Marine Inc [1] 2/12

marked [1] 13/7

matter [1] 32/9

matters [1] 30/11

Maurice [1] 1/19

may [2] 7/1 27/15

maybe [6] 4/5 26/11 26/23 28/11

 28/19 29/13

mc [2] 1/2 2/2

me [24] 2/20 4/4 4/10 5/25 7/3 12/1

 12/4 12/7 12/13 13/19 17/10 18/4

 27/6 27/16 28/15 29/3 29/5 29/25

 30/4 30/7 30/9 30/11 30/18 32/14

mean [5] 12/12 16/22 16/23 19/3

 28/22

means [1] 12/7

meet [4] 16/14 19/21 25/1 25/24

members [3] 8/2 8/12 11/18

mentioned [1] 6/16

merits [1] 10/6

met [1] 25/24

methodology [1] 5/21

million [4] 5/12 5/18 24/14 26/9

missed [1] 3/22

modify [1] 2/16

monies [1] 10/20

month [1] 5/15

moot [1] 24/13

more [8] 3/17 11/15 14/8 15/6 15/8

 15/18 24/9 24/12

morning [1] 2/18

most [1] 27/20

motion [17] 2/15 3/4 4/9 4/22 5/3

 12/19 12/19 12/20 14/4 15/13 15/17

 18/7 18/15 18/25 25/1 28/25 30/16

motions [1] 22/21

movant [1] 2/20

Mr. [34] 

Mr. Hall [1] 9/18

Mr. Hawks [1] 8/14

Mr. Mullins [2] 12/17 13/20

Mr. Preston [15] 6/12 6/13 6/18 7/3

 11/9 11/11 11/13 11/16 11/19 21/15

 22/5 22/13 23/18 27/15 29/19

Mr. Ruperti [2] 10/18 10/19

Mr. Wertman [13] 2/21 4/4 14/8 14/12

 14/15 17/4 19/11 20/5 25/8 26/22

 27/1 27/3 27/6

Ms. [5] 12/17 13/19 25/5 28/23 29/6

Ms. Barton [5] 12/17 13/19 25/5

 28/23 29/6

much [6] 4/11 8/21 19/16 23/24 24/11

 25/21

Mullins [4] 1/19 2/8 12/17 13/20

multiple [3] 19/14 23/12 24/21

must [1] 10/18

my [20] 3/9 4/13 5/11 5/17 8/1 8/2

 10/10 13/5 20/18 22/11 23/25 24/14

 26/13 26/17 27/14 30/8 30/12 30/14

 32/12 32/16

N

narrative [1] 5/3

narrow [3] 3/12 14/13 14/14

narrowed [5] 3/12 5/7 18/3 19/11

 22/1

necessarily [1] 12/12

necessary [6] 16/24 16/25 25/10

 25/12 25/20 29/14

need [37] 

never [2] 15/7 15/11

New [1] 5/14

next [3] 27/13 28/17 29/9

no [15] 1/2 2/2 11/9 14/5 16/5 16/22

 18/16 18/19 19/14 20/10 22/20 22/21

 22/24 25/25 27/11

nonparties [5] 2/11 3/9 3/14 18/1

 25/3

nonparty [2] 11/20 25/14

nonparty's [1] 2/15

Nos [2] 21/22 21/24

not [51] 

note [1] 6/4

noted [2] 14/1 16/4

nothing [1] 17/9

Notwithstanding [1] 3/11

November [1] 28/20

Novoship [16] 1/6 2/3 2/7 2/8 3/7

 3/11 8/8 9/9 9/11 10/15 11/1 11/10

 21/19 23/10 28/6 32/9

Novoship's [1] 10/14

now [8] 7/7 8/15 10/10 14/15 20/7

 20/19 20/24 25/7

number [4] 4/11 12/5 18/15 19/21

O

objections [10] 2/15 4/6 4/8 4/14

 4/15 4/21 5/1 5/3 14/2 17/8

obligations [1] 23/15

obtain [2] 9/1 20/5

obtained [5] 8/19 9/5 9/18 20/2

 20/22

October [2] 1/7 32/9

off [1] 17/17

offer [1] 15/7

offered [3] 7/18 20/10 24/16

offering [1] 24/7

office [2] 5/14 6/19

offices [1] 32/7

offline [1] 29/20

Okay [3] 3/2 21/14 30/22

old [2] 23/8 24/10

once [2] 6/17 26/22

one [14] 4/11 5/11 5/16 6/12 9/25

 12/5 12/8 12/9 14/19 19/13 20/21

 24/6 25/7 30/20

ones [2] 16/12 17/22

online [1] 23/5

only [5] 14/19 17/19 17/24 29/14

 29/23

open [2] 23/9 24/10

opportunity [1] 12/3

oppose [1] 15/14

opposing [1] 20/5

opposite [1] 24/1

opposition [3] 3/21 18/24 27/3

order [14] 2/1 2/15 4/13 8/24 10/4

 13/7 14/4 14/9 15/13 19/5 22/15 30/8

 30/14 30/15

original [2] 3/6 18/14

originally [2] 17/16 20/23

other [17] 3/15 3/17 3/25 4/10 6/10

 9/22 12/6 12/10 12/11 13/21 14/17

 17/5 20/3 20/9 20/22 21/1 21/13

otherwise [1] 13/12

our [34] 

out [17] 5/20 15/6 18/15 18/21 19/24

 23/2 23/9 24/16 25/18 25/20 27/20

 28/7 28/14 29/19 30/3 30/6 30/15

outside [1] 6/1

outweighs [1] 4/3

overbroad [6] 3/13 16/16 16/18 20/1

 21/20 22/17

overly [2] 4/16 24/5

overwhelmingly [1] 13/20

own [1] 10/24

P

page [4] 4/12 7/22 14/21 30/14

pages [2] 1/10 23/3

paper [1] 23/8

papers [2] 6/4 10/12

paragraph [2] 7/15 10/15

paralegals [1] 24/3

part [8] 4/5 8/9 10/24 12/15 14/11

 14/13 15/1 28/6

parte [1] 19/20

partially [1] 13/17

parties [5] 5/6 6/13 7/6 8/19 13/5

parties' [3] 4/1 4/2 5/17

party [4] 8/24 9/12 13/5 30/20

PATRICK [1] 1/14

pay [8] 5/12 5/18 24/13 24/14 25/5

 26/13 27/9 28/6

paying [1] 26/20

PDVSA [2] 10/2 10/8

pending [4] 3/16 7/21 20/3 20/4

people [2] 6/19 23/8

percent [1] 21/16

Perez [1] 8/5

perspective [1] 27/23

petition [4] 6/16 7/16 10/14 19/20

phonetic [2] 8/14 10/13

places [1] 21/1

Plaintiffs [2] 1/7 1/19

plan [2] 29/10 29/12

platform [1] 22/7

pleadings [1] 2/17

please [1] 2/4

pleases [1] 28/21

pled [1] 5/11

pocketing [1] 10/2

point [5] 16/3 18/10 20/18 24/13

 30/19

pointed [1] 20/22

policy [1] 15/2

portions [1] 5/3

position [2] 3/3 10/23

potentially [1] 7/2

PowerPoint [3] 7/7 7/22 8/9

practiced [1] 4/10

preceded [1] 5/4

prefer [1] 28/22

prejudice [2] 30/6 30/16

presides [1] 7/25

Preston [17] 6/4 6/12 6/13 6/18 7/3

 11/9 11/11 11/13 11/16 11/19 19/23

 21/15 22/5 22/13 23/18 27/15 29/19

presume [1] 9/12

presumptively [1] 26/1

pretty [2] 4/11 19/16

prevail [1] 10/17

previous [1] 12/9

privilege [5] 6/23 16/24 22/10 22/10

 22/13

probably [1] 30/8

probative [1] 3/15

problem [2] 14/18 27/10

Procedure [1] 6/22

proceeding [3] 7/12 10/1 11/2

proceedings [4] 31/4 32/8 32/13

 32/15

process [2] 25/1 26/9

processing [1] 24/22

produce [5] 7/18 9/13 13/13 18/16

 20/13

produced [3] 13/12 16/10 17/20

producing [1] 25/14

product [1] 11/6

production [5] 26/25 27/8 28/13

 28/14 30/17

productions [2] 14/16 17/4

proper [1] 6/11

properly [1] 22/22

proportional [1] 4/17

proportionality [3] 3/18 3/23 25/4

proposal [1] 20/17

propose [1] 22/17

proposed [2] 4/3 27/3

protective [5] 2/15 13/7 13/7 14/4

 15/13

protocol [2] 22/23 29/18

prove [2] 10/4 15/1

proven [1] 10/18

provided [4] 2/18 14/8 16/20 18/3

public [2] 9/23 15/2

publicized [1] 5/13

pull [1] 23/9

purportedly [1] 3/12

purpose [2] 19/8 25/17

pushing [1] 22/16

put [3] 4/9 7/8 22/9

Q

question [1] 26/13

quite [2] 20/9 23/10

quote [1] 10/17

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 36 of 38 36
R

raised [1] 14/12

rather [1] 6/9

re [4] 1/6 2/2 11/7 32/9

re-litigate [1] 11/7

read [2] 4/21 22/2

readily [2] 3/17 11/15

real [2] 20/20 25/2

realize [1] 25/11

really [13] 5/5 6/3 6/6 6/24 7/2 7/9

 8/21 9/19 11/18 15/24 16/18 23/19

 23/20

Realtime [3] 1/24 32/6 32/20

reason [2] 4/5 19/14

reasonable [20] 3/16 18/13 19/3

 19/17 25/6 25/7 25/11 26/2 26/6

 26/14 26/16 26/19 26/25 27/8 27/9

 28/13 28/13 29/12 29/25 30/17

received [3] 5/11 7/8 14/2

recent [1] 5/10

recently [2] 15/19 18/9

recess [1] 31/2

record [3] 2/5 25/13 32/15

recorded [1] 32/8

recording [1] 32/13

reduce [4] 13/18 16/19 16/21 19/4

reduced [2] 15/8 32/14

REED [5] 1/20 2/9 7/18 8/19 8/25

refer [1] 3/9

referenced [1] 17/11

referring [2] 15/10 15/15

regarding [2] 8/10 11/23

regulating [1] 29/2

rejected [2] 19/1 20/18

related [2] 7/13 8/18

relating [1] 11/23

relationship [1] 10/8

relative [1] 4/1

relevancy [2] 16/23 16/23

relevant [4] 4/1 11/19 23/20 24/8

remainder [1] 4/22

repeat [2] 4/7 4/14

reply [5] 3/5 4/24 5/21 18/17 23/3

Reporter [3] 1/24 32/6 32/20

represent [1] 8/2

represented [1] 6/12

representing [1] 17/14

represents [3] 6/5 8/3 8/15

reputations [1] 26/3

request [5] 3/11 14/6 18/4 20/15

 29/24

requesting [1] 15/16

requests [21] 3/7 3/12 3/13 5/4 5/7

 5/22 11/22 14/9 14/12 14/14 15/4

 15/9 15/11 19/5 19/12 19/25 21/18

 21/21 21/22 21/23 21/24

require [2] 30/6 30/16

required [2] 12/22 20/25

requirement [4] 3/23 4/12 11/10 16/5

resources [2] 4/2 5/17

respect [2] 4/15 5/16

respectfully [2] 4/20 28/19

respond [3] 3/14 4/6 4/18

response [8] 13/19 13/23 15/11 18/17

 19/18 26/15 26/16 26/17

responses [3] 5/4 10/25 25/25

responsive [11] 6/17 6/25 7/2 7/3

 10/12 14/19 15/10 21/17 22/3 22/8

 28/9

responsiveness [1] 16/24

result [1] 32/11

results [1] 22/19

review [6] 16/23 18/19 22/7 22/7

 26/9 26/12

reviewed [2] 2/17 2/17

reviewing [3] 19/15 21/16 24/4

right [14] 2/14 7/12 8/15 17/25

 18/10 19/11 20/7 20/16 21/14 22/9

 25/6 27/6 28/3 30/25

RKA [1] 1/2

rote [1] 4/14

rule [9] 3/18 3/19 3/19 4/1 4/19

 4/25 5/1 5/16 25/4

Rule 26 [4] 3/19 4/1 5/16 25/4

Rule 45 [1] 3/19

Rules [1] 6/22

ruling [1] 5/10

rulings [1] 29/22

run [12] 3/18 15/25 16/8 16/11 17/1

 17/21 18/20 22/15 22/18 23/6 24/17

 24/19

run-around [3] 16/8 16/11 17/21

running [4] 6/1 16/21 22/16 24/3

Ruperti [8] 6/13 10/5 10/7 10/18

 10/19 14/24 15/1 27/17

Ruperti's [1] 10/2

S

said [15] 5/5 14/9 16/16 17/12 18/24

 19/5 19/16 20/10 20/11 20/11 20/12

 27/16 27/17 28/1 32/13

same [3] 4/7 4/14 16/9

sanctions [1] 22/21

Sargeant [24] 1/9 2/11 2/12 2/12

 2/12 5/10 6/10 7/14 8/2 8/4 8/4 8/5

 10/6 11/17 11/18 12/13 14/25 15/21

 15/25 17/1 17/23 19/24 23/12 32/10

Sargeant's [1] 6/1

Sargeant, [11] 7/23 8/12 8/15 9/1

 9/12 9/13 13/10 14/17 16/10 17/15

 17/19

Sargeant, III [11] 7/23 8/12 8/15

 9/1 9/12 9/13 13/10 14/17 16/10

 17/15 17/19

satisfied [1] 13/17

satisfies [1] 13/14

satisfy [2] 7/19 13/17

save [1] 12/18

saw [1] 21/17

say [15] 4/15 9/22 9/25 10/4 10/11

 10/17 10/22 12/17 13/20 21/8 22/22

 24/6 26/5 26/11 29/22

saying [3] 9/8 16/9 25/14

scattered [1] 24/3

schedule [1] 2/25

scope [7] 3/8 12/21 16/19 19/4 22/1

 26/19 27/22

Scott [1] 1/21

search [18] 16/20 16/21 18/3 18/20

 18/21 18/24 18/25 19/12 22/19 23/25

 24/7 24/17 25/17 25/19 26/8 26/24

 28/3 28/4

searches [7] 6/2 17/2 22/15 22/16

 22/17 22/18 23/5

second [2] 10/15 29/18

secondary [1] 17/1

Section [1] 3/20

seek [5] 3/15 3/16 10/6 13/3 13/10

seeking [3] 19/8 19/9 23/20

seeks [1] 8/8

seem [1] 12/6

seems [2] 11/5 27/6

self [1] 29/2

self-regulating [1] 29/2

sending [2] 24/5 25/15

Senior [1] 8/5

sense [1] 28/11

sensitive [2] 9/17 11/8

sent [1] 18/23

sequence [1] 5/21

served [1] 3/7

server [14] 6/1 16/21 17/1 17/11

 17/23 17/24 18/1 18/2 18/9 22/24

 23/1 23/5 23/12 24/6

set [8] 3/3 3/6 13/2 28/15 28/17

 28/20 29/6 30/19

sets [1] 16/22

settled [2] 10/10 11/7

settlement [2] 10/3 10/8

sever [3] 15/20 15/21 18/19

several [1] 18/1

share [1] 15/19

shareholders [1] 6/15

shed [1] 14/24

shell [1] 15/25

shortcut [1] 23/7

should [9] 4/21 8/19 11/4 11/10 25/3

 26/7 29/2 30/4 30/10

shouldn't [3] 12/12 29/2 29/3

show [1] 10/5

showed [1] 27/16

shuffle [1] 10/11

Signature [1] 32/20

significantly [1] 19/12

simple [1] 24/23

simply [3] 22/16 24/17 26/5

since [1] 15/17

SINGERMAN [7] 1/21 2/10 2/13 5/24

 14/3 17/25 18/7

Singerman LLP [1] 2/13

Singerman's [3] 16/2 17/14 17/21

single [5] 15/20 17/10 17/24 18/9

 22/23

sink [1] 17/8

situation [2] 5/2 19/22

six [2] 4/7 18/13

skill [1] 32/16

slide [1] 14/21

slides [2] 2/18 14/21

SMITH [5] 1/20 2/9 7/18 8/19 8/25

Smyrna [1] 32/7

solicitor [1] 6/5

some [12] 4/13 9/23 10/12 12/6 12/18

 14/16 17/4 21/21 21/23 29/17 29/21

 30/10

somebody [1] 24/10

something [3] 5/15 8/8 25/12

sometime [1] 28/20

somewhere [2] 21/8 28/10

sorry [3] 16/23 23/16 23/22

sort [1] 4/18

sounds [3] 19/17 28/24 29/25

source [1] 16/4

sources [4] 3/18 12/10 12/11 13/22

SOUTHERN [2] 1/1 7/23

speak [1] 20/7

specific [2] 9/16 14/5

specifically [2] 12/13 21/11

specifics [2] 4/6 30/14

spending [1] 29/19

spit [1] 18/15

spot [2] 19/13 19/13

stage [1] 27/4

stages [1] 25/19

staggering [1] 3/8

standing [1] 16/17

start [1] 6/2

startup [1] 23/4

statement [1] 18/12

statements [1] 16/17

STATES [2] 1/1 1/14

stating [1] 25/13

status [4] 28/20 29/4 29/7 30/20

step [1] 15/3

Steven [1] 10/13

still [8] 3/13 11/19 15/3 16/11

 16/18 20/7 20/19 30/7

subject [1] 11/8

subparts [1] 19/25

subpoena [9] 5/11 6/9 12/8 12/12

 12/22 15/5 15/8 19/4 25/15

subpoenaed [7] 6/10 8/25 9/1 9/11

 11/11 21/1 21/6

subpoenaing [1] 11/17

subpoenas [11] 2/16 2/16 3/7 3/19

 7/19 13/6 13/12 13/14 14/8 16/19

 18/3

subset [1] 21/11

sue [1] 14/25

sufficient [1] 26/5

suggesting [1] 26/16

summary [1] 18/10

supplied [1] 15/8

support [3] 5/24 7/11 20/21

supposed [1] 3/24

sure [1] 8/25

sworn [1] 13/2

T

take [2] 24/24 25/19

taken [1] 21/12

talk [3] 12/4 26/21 28/13

talking [6] 4/23 18/22 21/10 21/11

 25/21 25/21

targets [1] 16/7

task [1] 24/23

team [2] 27/13 27/13

technically [1] 15/24

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 37 of 38 37
T

technological [1] 32/12

Telephonic [2] 1/8 1/18

tell [8] 4/13 7/3 12/22 15/15 19/16

 21/17 22/18 24/17

telling [1] 18/4

temporal [1] 22/1

terabytes [1] 23/1

term [1] 18/20

terms [17] 6/17 6/23 16/20 16/21

 18/3 18/21 18/24 18/25 19/12 19/21

 23/25 24/7 25/4 25/17 25/19 28/3

 28/4

testimony [3] 8/17 13/2 15/10

than [5] 5/15 6/9 14/8 24/10 27/15

Thank [4] 2/22 30/23 30/24 31/1

that [215] 

that's [18] 5/12 6/11 7/15 9/19 11/8

 12/7 15/25 16/10 16/24 18/13 19/21

 21/6 21/9 22/11 22/23 23/1 27/2

 29/25

their [12] 5/25 7/22 8/7 9/25 10/24

 14/3 16/15 18/12 18/14 19/11 21/19

 23/9

them [34] 

then [14] 6/2 17/1 17/16 18/7 22/22

 23/2 25/15 25/19 26/24 28/3 28/7

 28/11 28/24 30/5

there [34] 

therefore [1] 10/23

these [19] 6/7 14/16 15/10 15/22

 16/3 16/6 16/7 16/13 17/5 17/6 17/7

 18/12 18/16 18/18 21/18 23/19 25/9

 25/16 28/12

they [94] 

they're [4] 12/15 16/9 20/16 22/8

they've [2] 9/5 19/12

thing [5] 4/18 9/19 15/12 16/9 16/14

things [8] 11/23 12/2 12/4 12/23

 18/12 23/24 24/4 25/16

think [14] 4/5 5/2 6/11 20/21 24/20

 25/3 27/12 27/22 28/23 29/6 29/8

 29/17 29/19 30/12

thinks [1] 30/20

this [46] 

thoroughly [1] 7/10

those [32] 3/12 5/22 5/23 7/17 7/18

 8/23 8/24 9/3 9/13 9/15 9/20 11/15

 12/23 13/6 13/9 13/10 13/13 16/21

 20/5 20/8 20/14 20/19 20/20 20/21

 20/22 21/3 21/13 21/22 21/24 22/1

 25/19 30/20

though [1] 15/24

thousands [1] 24/19

three [1] 26/12

through [9] 1/10 3/24 5/13 11/21

 11/21 12/6 13/12 14/7 25/23

thrown [1] 17/8

time [11] 5/8 7/5 14/2 15/14 16/19

 18/19 24/9 24/15 24/24 26/4 29/19

time-wise [1] 5/8

times [1] 12/5

today [4] 3/1 17/14 23/24 25/8

together [14] 7/8 12/17 12/21 19/1

 26/7 26/11 27/12 27/19 27/25 28/12

 28/16 28/24 29/1 30/3

told [2] 20/3 20/5

ton [1] 9/4

too [3] 12/1 26/6 28/2

towards [1] 10/5

transaction [2] 22/4 22/5

transactions [1] 23/19

transcribed [2] 1/24 32/8

Transcriber [1] 32/20

TRANSCRIBER'S [1] 32/3

transcript [2] 1/13 32/15

transcripts [7] 8/20 8/23 9/14 9/20

 20/8 21/4 21/12

transfer [1] 9/17

tried [4] 3/12 18/23 23/17 25/23

true [1] 32/15

trust [1] 29/1

try [3] 16/14 27/3 30/17

trying [4] 10/11 16/3 19/3 23/14

two [6] 7/11 14/20 15/13 16/22 19/21

 26/12

typewritten [1] 32/14

U

U.S [3] 5/13 6/21 22/13

UK [4] 1/6 2/3 2/7 32/9

unauthorized [2] 7/15 8/10

uncovered [1] 10/2

under [7] 3/19 6/15 12/22 13/7 16/4

 25/4 25/14

underlying [1] 15/2

understand [5] 4/25 6/21 14/22 26/15

 26/19

understanding [4] 17/13 23/19 24/25

 28/5

unduly [4] 3/13 14/10 16/15 19/7

UNITED [2] 1/1 1/14

universe [2] 26/22 28/1

unless [2] 3/22 30/2

unreasonable [3] 3/8 19/7 25/15

unreasonably [2] 28/5 28/7

unresponsive [1] 28/3

up [10] 6/1 6/18 12/5 18/16 24/10

 26/24 27/8 28/1 29/9 29/12

upheld [1] 12/12

us [17] 4/11 4/13 4/14 5/21 14/16

 15/7 15/7 15/15 16/3 16/5 16/8 16/11

 17/21 20/5 22/7 23/7 27/4

V

valid [1] 22/10

various [1] 6/15

vastly [1] 3/13

vendor [2] 6/1 23/2

venture [1] 10/8

ventures [1] 6/15

very [9] 7/5 8/8 9/4 13/1 22/17 25/2

 25/2 26/2 26/2

vessels [1] 11/24

viable [1] 15/3

volume [3] 18/21 25/18 25/22

voluminous [2] 8/17 13/1

voluntarily [1] 11/1

vs [3] 1/8 14/17 32/10

W

walk [1] 14/7

want [7] 6/7 11/5 17/9 21/2 26/9

 28/19 28/20

was [24] 2/1 5/15 6/14 7/8 7/14 10/1

 10/8 10/10 10/11 12/25 14/3 14/5

 15/6 15/7 15/12 17/16 17/17 19/1

 20/10 20/13 20/17 26/13 27/18 29/11

wasn't [1] 22/3

way [8] 11/17 13/6 17/8 27/20 28/2

 28/8 30/1 30/10

we [97] 

we'll [1] 30/21

we're [15] 2/14 4/23 7/6 8/24 11/20

 13/5 15/16 19/8 19/9 22/19 23/14

 25/21 25/21 27/19 28/16

we've [11] 3/6 5/2 15/17 15/23 16/14

 18/23 18/23 19/3 24/16 25/23 25/24

weeds [1] 12/2

week [3] 27/13 28/17 29/9

weigh [1] 29/23

well [9] 4/4 4/20 6/20 10/25 13/16

 18/13 23/21 26/1 27/16

were [25] 2/18 3/8 8/3 8/5 8/12 8/25

 9/4 9/16 10/19 11/7 13/11 14/8 14/9

 14/12 15/3 19/5 20/3 20/17 21/12

 22/17 24/2 25/1 28/24 31/4 32/13

weren't [1] 28/3

Wertman [15] 1/21 2/10 2/21 4/4 14/8

 14/12 14/15 17/4 19/11 20/5 25/8

 26/22 27/1 27/3 27/6

what [30] 5/21 5/25 6/3 8/21 10/11

 11/5 12/15 14/8 14/22 15/1 15/6

 15/16 17/19 18/4 18/18 18/21 19/8

 19/16 19/24 20/10 21/14 22/21 23/17

 23/20 26/15 26/23 27/2 27/12 30/4

 30/5

what's [6] 6/24 12/22 13/23 19/18

 23/11 25/20

whatever [3] 12/19 26/12 28/21

when [9] 4/18 14/3 15/8 15/12 22/21

 23/24 24/10 24/25 25/1

where [6] 12/18 12/23 12/25 19/22

 22/11 23/8

whether [2] 4/2 12/10

which [37] 

who [13] 5/11 6/4 6/5 6/12 6/14 8/4

 8/14 9/12 17/10 17/12 17/15 17/22

 24/13

whole [1] 25/17

why [1] 10/16

widely [1] 5/13

will [17] 3/9 5/7 6/4 6/22 15/21

 16/21 18/25 21/15 26/18 27/8 27/9

 29/5 29/22 29/23 30/8 30/9 30/15

willing [5] 25/5 26/13 26/21 27/1

 27/7

wise [1] 5/8

withdraw [1] 18/25

within [1] 23/12

without [2] 30/5 30/16

Wolff [3] 1/24 32/6 32/20

work [13] 11/6 18/23 19/1 23/14 27/1

 27/7 28/14 29/1 29/19 29/22 30/3

 30/3 30/6

working [3] 18/6 24/21 28/24

world [1] 24/3

would [36] 

wouldn't [7] 13/13 13/16 15/4 20/12

 20/15 21/17 27/17

wrinkle [1] 17/18

written [1] 30/15

wrongful [2] 10/2 14/24

wrongfully [1] 10/5

Y

Yeah [1] 23/23

years [2] 21/21 21/23

yes [7] 4/25 18/5 18/14 26/15 26/17

 27/2 29/15

yet [1] 4/13

York [1] 5/14

you [107] 

you're [11] 2/25 9/8 15/10 15/15

 17/11 18/2 18/4 26/1 26/10 26/25

 30/2

you've [1] 21/6

your [43] 

Case 0:20-mc-60876-RKA Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2020 Page 38 of 38 38