UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI-DADE DIVISION

SCANZ TECHNOLOGIES, INC., fka

EQUITYFEED CORPORATION, A Canadian

(Quebec) Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEWMON ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al.,

Defendants

.

Case No. 20-cv-22957 (RNS/EGT)

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE

Plaintiff Scanz Technologies, Inc., fka Equityfeed Corporation, A Canadian (Quebec)

Corporation (hereafter “Plaintiff”) respectfully submits this Notice of Compliance pursuant to

Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Order Setting Discovery Procedures (hereafter “Magistrate

Discovery Order,” DE17), identifying the substance of the discovery disputes to be heard on

June 4, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. (DE92).

DISPUTE #1: DEFENDANTS’ WHOLESALE REFUSAL TO

PRODUCE THOUSANDS OF RESPONSIVE DOCUMENT-FILES

Summary And Nature Of Dispute

The Defendants have engaged in a wholesale refusal to produce thousands of responsive

documents after Plaintiff provided Defendants with a good faith extension of time and despite

Plaintiff’s extensive meet-and-confer efforts. These refusals to produce documents are

grounded in numerous associated objections interposed by the Defendants in violation of

Sections 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) of this Court’s Magistrate Discovery Order, including, for example,

the following document requests and objections by defendants StocksToTrade.com Inc. and

1

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 1 of 19
Timothy Sykes:

A. Representative Example No. 1, The StocksToTrade.com

Source And Object Codes Defendants Refuse To Produce

Defendant StocksToTrade.com, Inc. (hereafter “STT”) is refusing to produce any source

code or object code algorithms or materials in this case, despite the fact that Plaintiff has not

only produced such machine code-information,1 but has clearly identified such algorithmic

materials as among the many trade secrets stolen by the Defendants. Despite Plaintiff’s good

faith production of all source and object code material it believes were misappropriated by the

Defendants comprised of tens of thousands of bates-stamped electronic files, the following

colloquy was exchanged involving the interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff on Defendant

StocksToTrade.com Inc. seeking the same kind of material (see Exhibit 3 of the Source

Materials, page 29):

Document Request Nos. 154 and 155:

Any and all documents regarding or relating to the source code [and

object code] of any and all products you have offered to the public.

Responses to Request for Production No. 154 and 155:

STT objects to this request because it fails to specify documents with

reasonable particularity. STT further objects to this request as overly

broad and disproportionate to the needs of the case because it seeks

information not relevant to any party’s existing claim or defense

such that the burden of producing responsive documents would

outweigh any probative benefit. Source code of STT products [and

object code of STT] products has no relevance to Scanz’s allegation

that STT misappropriated the architecture underlying the functionality

contained in the Filter Builder module of Plaintiff’s product offerings.

1 In March 2021, in response to the Defendants’ request for production of materials

of Plaintiff that were stolen by the Defendants, Plaintiff produced both source and object code

data -- as well as source code schematic material -- encompassing tens of thousands of files

bearing the following bates stamp numbers: (a) Source Code Material: ST01750 - ST11486 (b)

Object Code Material: ST00001 - ST00103; ST01749; ST11559 - ST24648. (c) Schematic

Material: ST11487 - ST11502; ST11458 - ST11558.

2

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 2 of 19
Counsel for Plaintiff explained in the meet and confer exchanges with defense counsel

that the identified trade secrets go well beyond “the Filter Builder module of Plaintiff’s product

offerings” as incorrectly alleged at the end of Defendant’s objection to document request nos.

154 and 155. Plaintiff suggested that the Defendants carefully read all of Plaintiff’s 532 trade

secrets described in the already litigated response to Interrogatory No. 1 (see Source Materials,

Exhibit 1). Plaintiff’s counsel further explained the following:

1. First, counsel explained that the terms source code and object code were

already discussed in prior meet-and-confer sessions relating to the Defendants’

document productions, and Plaintiff already produced tens of thousands of electronic

files containing the source code, object code and related schematics that were

misappropriated by the Defendants. Given these facts, Plaintiff explained to counsel for

Defendants that they cannot reasonably base their refusal to produce source code and

object code information on the claim of ambiguity.

2. Second, Plaintiff’s counsel explained in detail that the Defendants’

continued refrain about the nature of Plaintiff’s trade secret-identification in response to

Interrogatory No. 1 (Source Materials, Exhibit 1) is simply untrue and always has been.

Plaintiff’s counsel pointed the Defendants, for example, to trade secret number 79 in

Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses (see Source Materials, Exhibit 1, at page 11), which

expressly identifies one of Plaintiff’s pivotal trade secrets that specifically involves

Plaintiff’s computer-based algorithms (i.e., not “the Filter Builder module of Plaintiff’s

product offerings,” as the Defendant StocksToTrade.com Inc. alleges in its objection).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel explained throughout the meet and confer process that

its trade secret identification is not limited in any way to “the Filter Builder module of

3

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 3 of 19
Plaintiff’s product offerings” as inaccurately alleged by STT. And Plaintiff further

reminded STT’s counsel again that Plaintiff produced tens of thousands of source and

object code files in specific response to the Defendants’ requests for production of the

stolen trade secrets. See also note 1, supra, and accompanying text. This document

production supplemented Plaintiff’s list of identified trade secrets as a matter of law

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). See Source Materials, Exhibit 1, page 2.

3. Never willing to speak on the foregoing merits, counsel for Defendant

StocksToTrade.com Inc. only very generally stated that they “disagree” and that they

“believe Plaintiff has only identified publicly-seen trade secrets.” When counsel for

Plaintiff asked where the architecture of its key algorithms, as discussed in trade secret

number 79 (see Source Materials, Exhibit 1, at page 11), appears in the public domain,

the Defendants’ counsel simply refused to answer and restated their general, incorrect,

unsupportable position that “everything you have identified is public.”

Also during the meet-and-confer process, Plaintiff further explained to Defense counsel

(a) that trade secret number 79 is among the most sensitive trade secrets stolen by the

Defendants2 and (b) that the definition of architecture by Plaintiff in trade secret number 79

includes all “designs, frameworks, components, compilations, methods, techniques, elements,

ingredients, pieces, dialogues (and other kinds of informational-exchange structures involving

data acquisition and interaction) that are necessary or are otherwise utilized under the laws of

physics, engineering and mathematics to create or result in the viability, operationalization,

serviceability and workability” of the algorithms at issue: there cannot be a serious doubt that

2 Plaintiff’s seventy-ninth trade secret was marked “highly confidential computer

code,” and, despite a challenge by Defendants over this watermark-designation, all of the

defendants ultimately withdrew their objection to the “highly confidential” designation after

Plaintiff noticed a magistral hearing for May 6, 2021 and docketed its Notice of Compliance as

DE83.

4

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 4 of 19
this includes computerized machine codes such as source and object code, and no expert would

testify otherwise. (See Source Materials, Exhibit 1, at page 2.) Equally important, Plaintiff

again reminded Defense counsel that the tens of thousands of source and object code electronic

files that Plaintiff produced supplemented its response to Interrogatory No. 1 under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 30(d) as a matter of law. The Defense counsels’ only reaction to the foregoing facts was the

repeated general statement that they “totally disagree” and “will not produce any sort of

machine code.” When pressed about the fact that these “algorithms” referenced in Plaintiff’s

trade secret number 79 are specifically not “the Filter Builder module of Plaintiff’s product

offerings” as alleged by Defendants, the Defendants did not disagree but instead remained silent

and stated that their position “will not change” because “no source or object code will be

produced” regardless of Plaintiff’s production in March of 2021 of Plaintiff’s source and object

code materials comprising additional stolen trade secrets.

B. Representative Example No. 2, Sykes Alter Ego And Conspiracy Documents:

Numerous lawyers for Defendant Timothy Sykes’ repeatedly stated that they will not

produce documents involving Plaintiff’s alter ego and conspiracy claims set forth in paragraphs

10, 13, 14 and 15 of the Complaint (DE1:4-5). For example, the following documents that are

clearly very important to this case are being withheld by Sykes as follows:

Document Request No. 76: Any and all documents regarding or relating to

to Your ownership of the website www.stockstotrade.com.

Response to Document Request No. 76: Mr. Sykes objects to Request No.

76 as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs

of the case because it seeks “all documents regarding or relating to

[Mr. Sykes’s] ownership of the website www.stockstotrade.com.” This

case is about the alleged misappropriation of certain trade secrets that

were allegedly used to create a stock scanning product offered by Defendant STT. Every document “regarding or relating to [Mr.

Sykes’s] ownership of the website www.stockstotrade.com” is not

relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. The absence of any scope

5

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 5 of 19
or time period limitation further renders this Request overly broad and

unduly burdensome. Mr. Sykes will not produce documents in response

to this request.

See Source Materials, Exhibit 1, page 21 and Exhibit 7, page 38.

During the meet and confer process embracing numerous communications, Plaintiff’s

counsel attempted to persuade the Defense counsel that this objection is not well taken.

Plaintiff’s counsel explained that www.stockstotrade.com is one asset at the core of this

litigation, and Mr. Sykes’ possible ownership of that asset is nearly unrivalled in relevancy and

importance, because it represents potentially powerful evidence in support of Plaintiff’s claim

that all defendants are “dominated and controlled” by Mr. Sykes as their “alter ego.” See, e.g.,

DE1:5 (Complaint, ¶ 14). Mr. Sykes’ counsel refused to produce this alter ego evidence based

on their objection to the effect that the only possible issue in the case is “the alleged

misappropriation of certain trade secrets that were allegedly used to create a stock scanning

product offered by Defendant STT [i.e., StocksToTrade.com Inc.].” See, e.g., Source Materials,

Exhibit 7, at p. 38.

C. Representative Example No. 3, Additional Sykes Alter Ego Evidence:

As set forth here and in Table 1 (see page 16, infra), there are innumerable alter ego and

conspiracy inquiries on which Sykes’ counsel has refused to produce documents. For example,

Source Materials, Exhibit 1 (page 19) and Exhibit 7 (page 21) reflects the following:

Document Request No. 46:

Any and all documents regarding or relating to communications

between You and any Defendant regarding the renaming

of JewMon to Millionaire Publishing.

Response to Document Request No. 46:

Mr. Sykes objects to Request No. 46 on the grounds that it is

overbroad and seeks information that is not relevant to the

6

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 6 of 19
claims or defenses in this case because it seeks “all

documents regarding or relating to communications between

[Mr. Sykes] and any Defendant regarding the renaming of

Millionaire Publishing.” This case is about the alleged misappropriation of certain trade secrets that were allegedly used to create

a stock scanning product offered by Defendant STT. Documents

“regarding or relating to communications between” Mr.

Sykes and “any Defendant” regarding the renaming of JewMon

are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case or proportional

to the needs of the case. Mr. Sykes will not produce documents

in response to this request.

In connection with this objection by Defense counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel explained to

Mr. Sykes’ counsel that this case is about more than just trade secret misappropriation and

involves extensive alter ego claims that include the specific allegation that not only did

Defendant Sykes “dominate and control” the affairs of all defendants and defendant-entities

(including, for example, Defendants Jewmon and Millionaire Media -- the entities described in

Document Request No. 46, above), but also that Sykes achieved the objects of the conspiracy

by “utilizing a series of company and product names different from the one he was utilizing

during the license agreement, ... .” and otherwise used a strategy involving the various

interconnected juridic defendants to “hide and camouflage ... the defendants’ theft and pirating

of assets from Scanz.” See, e.g., DE1:4,12 (Complaint, ¶¶ 10 and 33). The Defendants’

apparent decision to fold defendant Jewmon into the other defendants is vital to understanding

Sykes’ intentions regarding his interconnected web of companies that Plaintiff claims are all

alter egos of Sykes and that were allegedly used by Sykes and Westphal in conspiring to

camouflage their theft of Plaintiff’s stock scanning system.

Nevertheless, counsel for Mr. Sykes responded during the meet and confer session that

they do not care about Plaintiff’s alter ego and conspiracy allegations and view this as a

litigation matter where “the only relevant evidence is directly tied to” trade secret

7

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 7 of 19
misappropriation. Despite the best, good faith attempts of Plaintiff’s counsel to resolve this

dispute, the only result was that counsel for Mr. Sykes would not budge and confirmed that they

will not produce the foregoing alter ego and conspiracy evidence.

Full List Of Items Plaintiff Seeks Production On From Defendants

With the foregoing as a backdrop, the significant number of meet and confer

communications encompassed innumerable additional document requests and other discovery

(see also Dispute #2, infra) on which the Defendants have refused to produce documents or

substantively respond to, based upon the same or similar grounds. These additional items are

included in Table 1 below, which is set forth on pages 16 through 18, infra. All of the Source

Materials for these additional disputed discovery items have been submitted in preparation for

the June 4, 2021 hearing.

DISPUTE #2: DEFENDANTS’ REFUSAL TO SUBSTANTIVELY

RESPOND TO NUMEROUS INTERROGATORIES

The Defendants’ lawyers adopted the same approach regarding interrogatories that they

employed regarding producing documents: innumerable interrogatories served upon

Defendants STT, Sykes and Westphal have not been responded to based on relevance and

burdensome objections that are obviously without merit.

A. Representative Example No. 1, The Sykes Refusals To Answer

Important Interrogatories On Bases That Are Without Merit

A classic example of the dispute about interrogatories is found in counsel for Mr. Sykes

claiming certain interrogatories are burdensome based on the same “only misappropriation

evidence is relevant” objection that Sykes’ counsel interposed for the documents. The first

example also finds Sykes’ counsel interposing the unfortunately baseless objection that the

interrogatory is improper because the requested information can more easily be obtained by

other means. The problem is that those other means are document productions Mr. Sykes has

8

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 8 of 19
also refused to comply with. The net result is that Plaintiff has no means to obtain the

requested discovery because Mr. Sykes’ counsel is refusing to respond to both interrogatories

and document requests about the topic. One instance of this condition involves the following

interrogatory and objection colloquy exchanged by Plaintiff Scanz Technologies and Defendant

Sykes (see Source Materials, Exhibits 5 and 9, pages 13-14 and 4-5, respectively):

Interrogatory No. 5:

For all periods from January 1, 2013 through and including the date

upon which the Complaint in this Matter was filed, identify any and

all transfers, payments, remittances, movements or deliveries of

property (hereinafter “transfers”) involving You, on the one hand,

and any of the Defendants, on the other hand, including, without

limitation, such transfers by you to any of the Defendants or

any of the Defendants to you. For each transfer, please also

describe the dates, amounts and all surrounding circumstances and

explanations about and involving each such transfer.

Response to Interrogatory No. 5:

Mr. Sykes objects to Interrogatory No. 5 as unduly burdensome because

it would require Mr. Sykes to search through all of his financial records

for a period of over eight years. This information can be obtained

more easily through other sources. Mr. Sykes further objects to this

Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to the

claims or defenses in this case. This case is about the alleged misappropriation of certain trade secrets that were allegedly used to create a stock

scanning product offered by Defendant STT. “[A]ll transfers,

payments, remittances, movements or deliveries of property involving” Mr. Sykes and any of the Defendants have nothing to do

with the alleged misappropriated trade secrets at issue in this case.

The meet and confer sessions on this issue started with Sykes’ lawyers refusing

to discuss the fact that the subject matter of this interrogatory is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s

conspiracy and alter ego claims, except to say that they are not interested in talking about such

allegations in the Complaint. And when Plaintiff’s counsel reminded opposing counsel that

opposing counsel’s “available through other means” objection is frivolous for the reason that

9

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 9 of 19
Mr. Sykes has refused to produce documents regarding the same topic covered by this

interrogatory, counsel for Mr. Sykes merely stated that they “disagreed” and are “unwilling to

change” their position.

The document production requests and responses demonstrating that Plaintiff has

indeed been totally blocked by Sykes’ counsel on this issue -- blocked from receiving any of the

requested information (whether documents or interrogatory responses) despite its importance to

Plaintiff’s alter ego and conspiracy claims -- are document request nos. 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65,

66, 67, and 129, and Mr. Sykes responses thereto. See Source Materials, Exhibit 1 (pages 20-21

and 27) and Exhibit 7 (pages 39-35 and 57-58), respectively.

B. Representative Example No. 2, The Westphal Refusals To Answer

Important Interrogatories On Bases That Are Obviously Meritless

The responses to interrogatories by Defendant Zachary Westphal are equally without

merit. Indeed, not only did Westphal interpose the same relevancy-based objections but

Westphal also refused to answer critical interrogatories for no apparent reason. Emblematic

examples are found in the colloquy surrounding two very simple interrogatories concerning

Plaintiff’s alter ego and trade secret allegations:

(i)

Interrogatory No. 5:

Identify any and all transfers, payments, remittances, movements

or deliveries of property (hereafter “transfers”) involving You,

on the one hand, and any of the Defendants, on the other

hand, including, without limitation, such transfers by you to

any of the Defendants or by any of the Defendants to you.

For each such transfer, please also describe the dates, amounts

and all surrounding circumstances and explanations about and

involving each such transfer.

Response to Interrogatory No. 5

10

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 10 of 19
Mr. Westphal objects to this request as overly broad to the

extent it seeks information regarding transfers unrelated to

Scanz’s allegation of trade secret misappropriation that are

not relevant to any parties claim or defense including

monetary transactions conducted in the normal course of

business between Mr. Westphal and companies of which

he is an owner, part-owner, or employee. Mr. Westphal

further objects to this request because it is not reasonably

limited in scope or time as it seeks information regarding “any

and all” transfers.

See Source Materials, Exhibits 6 and 11, pages 14 and 5, respectively.

During the meet and confer exchanges, Plaintiff explained once again that its alter ego

and conspiracy allegations are clear and unambiguous to the effect that all of the juridic

defendants -- which appear to utilize substantially identical office locations and which share

common ownership -- are simply one and the same enterprise that cannot be distinguished

under the law. The intercorporate transfers among these entities is critical to Plaintiff’s alter

ego and conspiracy claims and Plaintiff explained that to counsel for Westphal. The only

answer Plaintiff received was that counsel for Westphal “doesn’t care” about Plaintiff’s alter

ego and conspiracy claims and will not produce any information of any kind responsive to

interrogatory no. 5.

(ii)

Westphal also simply refused to answer interrogatories regarding his understanding of

key trade-secret-related provisions of the License Agreement at the time the Defendants entered

into the License Agreement. This License Agreement was actually lodged with the Court by

his co-defendant Timothy Sykes as DE41-1. The License Agreement is referred to throughout

the Complaint not only as the purported basis for the parties’ initial involvement together but

also as one basis for Plaintiff’s attempt to protect its trade secrets from what Plaintiff alleges is

the Defendant’s theft and misappropriation of those trade secrets. Indeed, Plaintiff seeks, in its

11

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 11 of 19
prayer, that the Court specifically enforce the confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions of

that License Agreement protecting its trade secrets. See DE1:8-10, 12, 13, 14-16, 19 and 35

(Complaint, ¶¶ 26-30, 33, 35-37, 40-43, 54 and 109m).

Despite having disclosed to Westphal’s lawyers the foregoing during the meet and

confer sessions, Westphal’s lawyers simply refused to permit Westphal to answer the question

of what Westphal thought was meant by the key provisions of the License Agreement at the

time it was entered into. In refusing to disclose whether he ever had an understanding of the

meaning of key provisions, Westphal instead objected and said the document speaks for itself.

Importantly, at its core, this interrogatory merely calls for a yes or no answer regarding whether

Westphal had an understanding of a key provision at the time his partner Timothy Sykes signed

the License Agreement. But even that core question will not be answered by Westphal. The

colloquy, and interrogatory, on the matter follows (see Source Materials, Exhibits 6 and 11, and

pages 17 and 11-12, respectively):

Interrogatory No. 12:

With respect to the provision of the License Agreement embodied in

the second sentence of Section 15 of the License Agreement

(which sentence reads, “After termination of this Agreement,

while it is acknowledged that JewMon may create and procure

a competitive market analysis platform to offer to its customers,

JewMon shall not utilize any portion of the Software and shall

not copy the ‘look and feel’ of the Software/Website.”) please

describe your belief, impression, interpretation, or understanding by You regarding the meaning of this particular provision of the License Agreement at all times prior to the time

Timothy Sykes signed the License Agreement and at the

time Timothy Sykes signed the License Agreement.

Response to Interrogatory No. 12:

Mr. Westphal objects to this request as unintelligible because

it seeks information regarding his “belief, impression,

interpretation, or understanding” of the meaning of a provision

12

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 12 of 19
of an agreement to which he was not a party. Mr. Westphal further

objects to this request as overly broad because it seeks information

unrelated to Scanz’s allegation of trade secret misappropriation.

Mr. Westphal further objects to this request to the extent it seeks

information regarding confidential communications between

Mr. Westphal and his attorneys protected by the attorney-client

privilege and the work product doctrine. Mr. Westphal states that he

understands the quoted provision to be part of an agreement between

EquityFeed and JewMon the terms of which speak for themselves.

Counsel for Westphal refused to change their position, refused to even provide an

answer to the question of whether Westphal ever had an understanding regarding what this

paragraph meant (just a yes or no answer), and even refused in the next interrogatory to disclose

whether Westphal ever talked to his technology development team regarding his understanding

of this key provision that appears to preclude the Defendants from even attempting to purloin

Plaintiff’s technology as they in fact did. See Id., pages 17-18 and 12-13, respectively.

(iii)

Plaintiff believes that Defendant Westphal may have worked directly with lawyers in

stealing Plaintiff’s product, and it propounded an important interrogatory that merely asks for

the first date in time when counsel was contacted by the Defendants regarding the Defendants’

competing technology platform. Unfortunately, Westphal refused to even answer that question

regarding merely his identification of a chronological date. The meet and confer session

involved Westphal’s counsel stating that they are “not interested” in providing the date. Here is

the interrogatory colloquy:

Interrogatory No. 20:

From a chronological perspective, please identify the earliest historical

date on the Gregorian Calendar when any of the Defendants first

communicated with an attorney, law firm or lawyer concerning or

relating in any manner to a business, architecture, software application

or other technology involving a Scanning Platform other than the

white label product identified in the License Agreement.

13

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 13 of 19
Response to Interrogatory No. 20:

Mr. Westphal objects to this request as overly broad because it seeks

information unrelated to Scanz’s allegation of trade secret misappropriation. Mr. Westphal further objects to this request because it seeks

information regarding confidential communications between Mr.

Westphal and his attorneys protected by the attorney-client privilege

and the work product doctrine.

When Plaintiff’s counsel indicated during the meet and confer that merely providing a

date could not violate the attorney client or work product privileges, counsel for Westphal

merely said they “disagreed.” And Westphal’s counsel further refused to even acknowledge

that any involvement, by counsel, with Defendants’ trade secret theft in 2013, 2014 or 2015 (for

example) would be extremely important information because it would obviously demonstrate

that the Defendants may have believed they were doing something wrong at the time and would

insinuate possibly additional participants in the alleged conspiracy. Instead, his counsel merely

remarked that they “disagree” and “will not change their position.”3

C. Representative Example No. 3, The StocksToTrade.com Inc. Refusals To

Answer Important Interrogatories On Bases That Are Obviously Meritless

The positions espoused by counsel for StocksToTrade.com Inc. were no different than

the other Defendants. The following is a key example of what Plaintiff sincerely believes is

very much akin to bad faith stonewalling in discovery by StocksToTrade.com Inc.:

Interrogatory No. 4:

Identify any and all transfers, payments, remittances, movements

or deliveries of property (hereafter “transfers”) involving You,

on the one hand, and any of the Defendants, on the other hand,

including, without limitation, such transfers by You to any of the

3 Defendants Sykes and StocksToTrade.com Inc. also refused to answer the

identical interrogatory (see, e.g., Source Materials, Exhibit 9, page 16 and Exhibit 10, page 13,

pertaining to Interrogatory Nos. 25 and 14, respectively, served upon Sykes and STT) and

Plaintiff -- as a part of Dispute #2 -- respectfully requests that Sykes and STT be ordered to

respond to this Interrogatory just as Westphal should be ordered to respond.

14

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 14 of 19
Defendants or by any of the Defendants to You. For each such

transfer, please also describe the dates, amounts and all surrounding circumstances and explanations about and involving

each such transfer.

Response to Interrogatory No. 4:

STT objects to this request as overly broad to the extent it

seeks information regarding transfers unrelated to Scanz’s

allegation of trade secret misappropriation that are not relevant

to any parties claim or defense including monetary transactions

conducted in the normal course of business between STT

and companies or individuals of which one or more of such

individuals is an owner, part-owner, or employee of one

or more of such companies. STT further objects to this request

because it is not reasonably limited in scope or time as it

seeks information regarding “any and all” transfers.

See Source Materials, Exhibits 5 and 10, and pages 13 and 4-5, respectively.

During the meet and confer and communication process, Plaintiff’s counsel reminded

STT’s counsel of the alter ego and conspiracy allegations in the Complaint and of the fact that

transfers by defendant StocksToTrade.com Inc. to any of the Defendants is highly relevant not

only to the alter ego but also to Plaintiff’s damages claim. Plaintiff’s counsel also pointed out

that if it wins its case against StocksToTrade.com Inc. and proves that the product was

purloined from Plaintiff then any monies flowing through StocksToTrade.com Inc. are highly

relevant to both allegations. The Defendants’ position was clear that they are refusing to

produce any information regarding money flowing among the Defendants and

StocksToTrade.com Inc, partially because counsel says they “don’t care” about Plaintiff’s alter

ego allegations and partially based on their relevancy objection that “only trade secret

misappropriation evidence is relevant” as set forth in their objection.

COMPLETION Of DISPUTES: ADDITIONAL BLOCKED

DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES

The following table sets forth the additional items Plaintiff respectfully seeks relief on,

15

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 15 of 19
all of which involve substantially similar bases upon which the Defendants have objected.

Each Source Material Exhibit relating to these items has been submitted in preparation for the

hearing on this matter:

TABLE OF ADDITIONAL IMPROPER OBJECTIONS

Interrogatory/Request For

Production

Defendants’ Objections Plaintiff’s Rebuttal During

Meet And Confer Process

Sykes Document Request

No. 38:

Sykes’ current and former

ownership interests in any

corporate Defendant.

1. Overly broad, unduly burdensome,

and disproportionate to the needs of

the case.

2. Not relevant because the only issue in

the case is trade secret

misappropriation.

3. Overly broad and unduly burdensome

due to no scope or time period

limitation.

4. “There are far more efficient methods

of discovery than this document

request to determine Mr. Sykes’s

ownership interest in any Defendant.”

This request is highly relevant to alter

ego as it will determine the level of

control Sykes had over each

Defendant over the years.

Sykes Document Request

No. 44:

The decision to rename

JewMon to Millionaire

Publishing.

1. Overly broad.

2. Not relevant because the only issue in

the case is trade secret

misappropriation.

This request is relevant to both the

trade secrets claim and alter ego.

Because JewMon was involved in

developing the STT platform while

the License Agreement was in effect,

it is important to understand why it

changed its name to Millionaire

Publishing since the name change

may have been a move by Defendants

to conceal their misappropriation of

Scanz’ trade secrets.

Sykes Document Request

No. 64:

Monetary transactions

between STT and

any Defendant.

1. Overly broad, unduly burdensome,

and disproportionate to the needs of

the case.

2. Not relevant because the only issue in

the case is trade secret

misappropriation.

3. Overly broad and unduly burdensome

due to no scope or time period

limitation.

This request is very relevant to alter

ego as it asks for all monetary

transactions and exchanges between

Sykes and each Defendant. The flow

of monies between Defendants is

essential to determine the relationship

and status between the Defendants.

As for Sykes, it is also important to

determine the amount of control he

exerted over the Defendant entities.

Sykes Request No. 67:

Agreements or transactions

involving Sykes and any

Defendant.

1. Overly broad, unduly burdensome,

and disproportionate to the needs of

the case.

This request is highly relevant to alter

ego as seeing how few or many

agreements or transactions Sykes has

entered into with the other

Defendants is probative to Sykes’

16

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 16 of 19
2. Not relevant because the only issue in

the case is trade secret

misappropriation.

3. Overly broad and unduly burdensome

due to no scope or time period

limitation.

relationship with Defendants. Further,

it will show the level of control Sykes

has had over the Defendant entities. It

will also show the extent of

Westphal’s role in the Defendants

insofar as he was involved in Sykes’

agreements or transactions with

Defendants.

STT Request for Production

No. 34:

STT’s current and former

ownership interests in any

corporate Defendant.

1. Failure to specify documents sought

with Reasonable particularity.

2. Overly broad and disproportionate to

the needs of the case because the

information sought is not relevant.

This is relevant to alter ego to show

STT’s position among the

Defendants. Further, STT’s objections

are pure boilerplate in violate of the

Magistrate’s Standing Order.

STT Request for Production

No. 35:

STT’s current and former

ownership interests in any

corporation or juridic entity.

1. Failure to specify documents sought

with Reasonable particularity.

2. Overly broad and disproportionate to

the needs of the case because the

information sought is not relevant.

This is relevant to alter ego in tandem

with STT RFP No. 34. This will help

determine whether STT has any

ownership presence outside of the

Defendants.

STT Request for Production

No. 52:

All physical locations that

STT has ever owned,

possessed, or used.

1. Failure to specify documents sought

with Reasonable particularity.

2. Overly broad and disproportionate to

the needs of the case because the

information sought is not relevant.

This request is highly relevant to alter

ego as it will determine whether STT

operates out of the same physical

locations as Defendants. The

information sought is with more than

reasonable particularity, as it

expressly includes STT to include

documents about the headquarters,

principal place of

business, offices, properties, storage

facilities, real estate they have owned

or possessed in any manner.

STT Request for Production

No. 56:

Financial obligations that

STT has shared with any

Defendant.

1. Failure to specify documents sought

with Reasonable particularity.

2. Overly broad and disproportionate to

the needs of the case because the

information sought is not relevant.

This request is relevant to alter ego. It

is important to see whether

Defendants maintained largely

separate financial affairs or regularly

covered each other’s financial

obligations and liabilities. It is also

relevant to the trade secret claim to

the extent of understanding who was

financially involved in the

development of the STT platform,

such as paying invoices from Scopic

Software.

STT Request for Production

No. 65:

Monetary transactions

between STT and

any Defendant.

1. Failure to specify documents sought

with Reasonable particularity.

2. Overly broad and disproportionate to

the needs of the case because the

information sought is not relevant.

This request is very relevant to alter

ego as it asks for all monetary

transactions and exchanges between

STT and each Defendant. The flow of

monies between Defendants is

essential to determine the relationship

and status between the Defendants.

17

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 17 of 19
Further, STT’s objection is complete

boilerplate.

STT Request for Production

No. 68:

Agreements or transactions

involving STT and any

Defendant.

1. Failure to specify documents sought

with Reasonable particularity.

2. Overly broad and disproportionate to

the needs of the case because the

information sought is not relevant.

This request is relevant for the same

reasons as Sykes RFP No. 67. STT’s

transactions with Defendants or lack

thereof are relevant to alter ego.

Further, the objections raised by STT

are wholly boilerplate.

STT Request for Production

No. 109:

Amount of time spent on

development of the STT

scanning platform

1. Failure to specify documents sought

with Reasonable particularity.

2. Overly broad and disproportionate to

the needs of the case because the

information sought is not relevant.

3. “Subject to and without waiving its

objections, STT will produce []

document . . . showing the amount of

time spent on development of the

features of the STT platform that

Scanz alleges provide the same

functionality . . . as the alleged

misappropriated trade secrets in this

case.”

This request is highly relevant to the

trade secret claim. This is important

to determine how quickly the STT

platform was developed. This can be

compared with the development time

of other platforms. Several courts

have found a defendant’s speedy

emergence into an industry to be

probative in a trade secret

misappropriation claim.

STT Request for Production

No. 113:

Development of software

language and associated

computer logic regarding the

development of the STT

scanning platform, including

but not limited to coding and

programming.

1. Failure to specify documents sought

with Reasonable particularity.

2. Overly broad and disproportionate to

the needs of the case because the

information sought is not relevant.

3. Coding and programming of the STT

platform is not relevant.

4. “Subject to and without waiving its

objections, STT will produce []

documents . . . mentioning software

language and computer logic

corresponding to the features of the

STT platform that Scanz alleges

provide the same . . . as the alleged

misappropriated trade secrets in this

case.”

This request is very relevant to the

trade secret claim. Claiming that

coding and programming are not

relevant to the architecture of the STT

and Scanz platforms, including Filter

Builder and Screener+, is frivolous.

Coding and programming are

necessary to make such architectures

functional. This is followed by a

“subject to and without waiving its

objections” statement that is

expressly forbidden by the Standing

Order.

STT Request for Production

No. 122:

Development, design, and

testing of the user interface of

the STT scanning platform.

1. Failure to specify documents sought

with Reasonable particularity.

2. The User Interface of the STT

platform is “is not relevant to the

features of the STT platform that

Scanz alleges provide the same

functionality . . . as the alleged

misappropriated trade secrets in this

case.”

STT’s claim that the user interface of

the STT platform is irrelevant to the

trade secret claim is frivolous. The

user interface is an integral element

of software applications. The user

interface is a key element of the

architecture of the 532 parts of the

Scanz platform that Plaintiff alleges

was misappropriated.

Sykes Interrogatory No. 23:

From 2015 to March 2021,

Sykes’revenues, inter alia,

1. Not relevant because the only issue in

the case is trade secret

misappropriation.

This interrogatory is relevant to

damages for the trade secret claim as

well as the alter ego allegations.

18

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 18 of 19
connected to business related

to www.stockstotrade.com,

including the STT platform.

Subparts b and c were not

substantively responded to at all by

Sykes. And it cannot reasonably be

doubted that if Sykes directly

received revenues from the STT

platform that such evidence would

tend to establish his control thereof.

LOCAL RULE 7.1(A)(3) CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)(A), I hereby certify that counsel for the movants have

conferred with all parties who may be impacted by the relief sought in this application in a good faith

effort to resolve these issues, but have been unable to do so.

Dated: June 1, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/Gustavo D. Lage______

Gustavo D. Lage, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 972551

SQUIRE LAW GROUP, P.A.

301 W. Atlantic Avenue, Suite 5

Delray Beach, FL 33444

Phone: 888.788.8816

Fax: 786.577.0425

dlage@squirelawgroup.com

ebotwin@squirelawgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SCANZ TECHNOLOGIES INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 1, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing

to the Electronic Service List for this Case.

June 1, 2021 By: /s/ Gustavo D. Lage_______

Gustavo D. Lage, Esq.

19

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 19 of 19