From: Patricia Mathis <pmathis@xcastlabs.com> 

Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013, 8:52:27 PM EDT

To: Anthony Paronich <anthony@broderick-law.com<mailto:anthony@broderick-law.com>>

Cc: "snelson@xcastlabs.com<mailto:snelson@xcastlabs.com>" 

<snelson@xcastlabs.com<mailto:snelson@xcastlabs.com>>, 

"esears@xcastlabs.com<mailto:esears@xcastlabs.com>" 

<esears@xcastlabs.com<mailto:esears@xcastlabs.com>>, 

"pmathis@xcastlabs.com<mailto:pmathis@xcastlabs.com>" 

<pmathis@xcastlabs.com<mailto:pmathis@xcastlabs.com>>, "ted@brodericklaw.com<mailto:ted@broderick-law.com>" <ted@broderick-law.com<mailto:ted@brodericklaw.com>>, "Matthew P. McCue" 

<mmccue@massattorneys.net<mailto:mmccue@massattorneys.net>>, Alex Burke 

<ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com<mailto:ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com>>, Jeff Becker 

<jbecker@smbtrials.com<mailto:jbecker@smbtrials.com>>, 

"cmacizor@fflegal.com<mailto:cmacizor@fflegal.com>" 

<cmacizor@fflegal.com<mailto:cmacizor@fflegal.com>>, 

"sbzrlaw@gmail.com<mailto:sbzrlaw@gmail.com>" 

<sbzrlaw@gmail.com<mailto:sbzrlaw@gmail.com>>

Subject: Re: Charvat v. Travel Services, et. al. -- Order Compelling XCast Labs, Inc. to 

Immediately Produce Documents

Gentlemen:

I have just received today--several hours after our close of business--your request that expands 

your discovery efforts far beyond your initial request in the above matter. As a dis-interested 

third party in this dispute, XCast has been completely cooperative with all of you in our 

willingness to cooperate in this process--once we had clarification of our legal responsibilities. I 

have reached out to you in subsequent emails (see below) detailing the extent of our cooperation 

and also pointing out that we were operating under a previous order by Judge Zagel.

I was quite surprised and disappointed to get your demand an hour ago that we produce an even 

broader discovery by July 3, 2013--which is three working days away. As I have discussed with 

you previously in the attached emails and in a phone call, this discovery will impose considerable 

burden on our small company and will take considerable time. I have already indicated to you in 

a previous phone call that we will expect to be reimbursed fully for any expenses associated with 

this process. To state again, what we have always stated, we will cooperate fully once we 

understand our legal responsibility under the law.

As I have indicated previously, we would expect a specific clarification by the Court that we are 

not violating the Storage Communications Act.

As I have also indicated to you, as a small company we do not have an in house counsel. I will 

reach out to our Washington DC attorney next week to seek further guidance regarding this 

matter and will inform you of the appropriate contact information.

Pat Mathis

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 142-4 Filed: 06/28/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1599
On 6/28/2013 7:22 PM, Anthony Paronich wrote:

Ms. Sears and Mathis and Mr. Nelson:

Attached please find an Order signed by Judge Zagel from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois compelling a response from XCast Labs, Inc. to the attached 

subpoena.

In response to a previous Order from this same Court, XCast produced the attached .xls 

spreadsheet. Among other things, it is now appropriate for XCast to produce the same report for 

all outbound calls made by Resort Marketing Group or any of its other iterations from October 9, 

2008 to date. See Request Nos. 6 and 8. It is also appropriate to produce all invoices sent to those 

entities as well as any e-mails that your company was a sender or recipient of. See Request Nos. 2 

and 8. Also included should be any and all contracts entered into by Resort Marketing Group. 

See Request No. 1. Finally, any other lists or compilations of number called by Resort Marketing 

Group should also be produced. See Request Nos. 5 and 7. Finally, any communications you 

received from any attorneys or parties should be produced. See Request No. 9.

The Order signed by Judge Zagel is effective immediately, so please e-mail over all of the 

requested information by the close of business on July 3, 2013.

I’m writing to XCast Labs directly because you’ve never provided us with contact information of 

any attorney who represents you. If XCast Labs is going to be represented by an attorney in 

connection with this production, please pass along that contact information immediately.

Regards,

----

Anthony Paronich

Associate

Broderick Law, P.C.

125 Summer St., Suite 1030

Boston, MA 02110

[p] (508) 221-1510

[f] (617) 830-0327

This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are 

not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to 

the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying 

of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please 

immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.

On 6/28/2013 7:22 PM, Anthony Paronich wrote:

Ms. Sears and Mathis and Mr. Nelson:

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 142-4 Filed: 06/28/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:1600
Attached please find an Order signed by Judge Zagel from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois compelling a response from XCast Labs, Inc. to the attached 

subpoena.

In response to a previous Order from this same Court, XCast produced the attached .xls 

spreadsheet. Among other things, it is now appropriate for XCast to produce the same report for 

all outbound calls made by Resort Marketing Group or any of its other iterations from October 9, 

2008 to date. See Request Nos. 6 and 8. It is also appropriate to produce all invoices sent to those 

entities as well as any e-mails that your company was a sender or recipient of. See Request Nos. 2 

and 8. Also included should be any and all contracts entered into by Resort Marketing Group. 

See Request No. 1. Finally, any other lists or compilations of number called by Resort Marketing 

Group should also be produced. See Request Nos. 5 and 7. Finally, any communications you 

received from any attorneys or parties should be produced. See Request No. 9.

The Order signed by Judge Zagel is effective immediately, so please e-mail over all of the 

requested information by the close of business on July 3, 2013.

I’m writing to XCast Labs directly because you’ve never provided us with contact information of 

any attorney who represents you. If XCast Labs is going to be represented by an attorney in 

connection with this production, please pass along that contact information immediately.

Regards,

----

Anthony Paronich

Associate

Broderick Law, P.C.

125 Summer St., Suite 1030

Boston, MA 02110

[p] (508) 221-1510

[f] (617) 830-0327

This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are 

not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to 

the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying 

of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please 

immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Patricia Mathis <pmathis@xcastlabs.com<mailto:pmathis@xcastlabs.com>>

Date: June 12, 2013, 7:38:28 PM PDT

To: "ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com<mailto:ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com>" 

<ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com<mailto:ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com>>, "ted@brodericklaw.com<mailto:ted@broderick-law.com>" <ted@broderick-law.com<mailto:ted@brodericklaw.com>>

Cc: "jbecker@smbtrials.com<mailto:jbecker@smbtrials.com>" 

<jbecker@smbtrials.com<mailto:jbecker@smbtrials.com>>, 

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 142-4 Filed: 06/28/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:1601
"cmacizor@fflegal.com<mailto:cmacizor@fflegal.com>" 

<cmacizor@fflegal.com<mailto:cmacizor@fflegal.com>>, 

"sbzrlaw@gmail.com<mailto:sbzrlaw@gmail.com>" 

<sbzrlaw@gmail.com<mailto:sbzrlaw@gmail.com>>

Subject: RE: Charvat v. Resort Marketing and related claims

Gentlemen:

 This email follows up on my earlier email to you of May 24, 2013, in which I made what I 

hoped would be a comprehensive and conclusive response to the various inquiries and subpoenas 

you have sent to XCastLabs. As I indicated in that email, we are a third party in this dispute and 

will cooperate in accord with all legal requirements. Given that I still do not have a clear 

understanding of what it is you want nor have we had ample time to review this matter properly, I 

will try again to summarize what I believe are the critical issues.

 1. Producing these documents would be quite burdensome and possibly not even relevant to 

what you may be trying to resolve. As I indicated in my previous email, XCast is simply a 

transport carrier, so we would not have most of the information your vast discovery request 

entails. We do not have insight into who our customers do business with or how they conduct 

their internal affairs. We do not provide any telemarketing services. We are not responsible for 

the generation or maintenance of our customer's “Do Not Call” lists. We do not provide any call 

recording or third party verification services. We are simply the pipe through which our 

customer's communications travel. As such we have literally billions of call records associated 

with our many--literally hundreds of customers--of various customers' call records covering the 

various epochs you have inquired about. The extraction of a record associated with any single 

number or any set of numbers requires manpower and computer power. As a small company we 

have a limited amount of both. Because of the overwhelming size of billions of call records each 

year, they are stored in different ways--depending on the historical date of such calls. We would 

be required to research multiple databases and process queries from each database, generate 

reports from the various epochs you have inquired about, reconcile all call records with billing 

records to reflect actual terminated calls; then we would have to go through elaborate formatting 

and cross-checking to ensure there was no inclusion of a call that did not belong to the inquiry or 

single customer under consideration. In sum, this is a very time-consuming project and can't be 

brushed aside as "no big deal--just put it on a hard drive and send it to us"--as one of you have 

opined.

 2. We believe are are bound by the provisions of the Storage Communications Act and would 

be subject to extreme penalties for any violation of it. While this Act may be obscure to some, 

the discussion going on over the last week in the public square and involving major legal scholars 

about privacy--including the Attorney General, many Senators and Congressmen, and the 

President of the United States, will hopefully raise awareness about the sensitivity of 

communications and internet companies revealing any information that might be considered 

private.

 3. Not withstanding any of the above, XCast has fully complied with Judge Zagel's November 

29, 2012 order asking us to produce certain documents associated with the "Plaintiff'sindividual 

claims...including any calls placed to his telephone number(s.) We provided that to you on 

January 11, 2012. I am not aware of any attempt by you to modify that order yet youapparently 

filed a Motion to Compel without providing timely notice to anyone within XCast with decisionmaking authority.

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 142-4 Filed: 06/28/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:1602
 As I indicated in this email--and previously--we are certainly willing to cooperate with you in 

sorting this out and providing any and all information that is legally permissible for us to provide. 

But we must have some process for reviewing this matter in a more rational way.

Thank you,

Patricia Mathis

________________________________

From: Patricia Mathis

Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:18 PM

To: aburke@burkellc.com<mailto:aburke@burkellc.com>; ted@brodericklaw.com<mailto:ted@broderick-law.com>

Cc: jbecker@smbtrials.com<mailto:jbecker@smbtrials.com>; 

cmacizor@fflegal.com<mailto:cmacizor@fflegal.com>; 

sbzrlaw@gmail.com<mailto:sbzrlaw@gmail.com>

Subject: Charvat v. Resort Marketing and related claims

Gentlemen:

It has come to my attention that certain among you plan to request the court to compel the 

production of certain documents by XCast Labs, Inc. regarding Case 1:12-cv-05746, Document 

#131; filed 5/22/2013.

 This motion sets forth certain assumptions, namely that one Rory Pickens of Broderick 

Law, PC, spoke on the telephone with an “XCast representative Stephen Snow, on or about April 

17, 2013.”Mr. Snow is a front-line employee of XCast who may have randomly answered an 

incoming call from said Mr. Pickens. Mr. Snow has no role in legal oversight over XCast affairs 

and is not authorized to respond to subpoenas or any other legal matter involving the company. 

It is the policy and legal responsibility of XCast to respond only to official signed orders from a 

court. If Mr. Snow responded to an unknown caller requesting confidential information, he 

would have been acting appropriately and in accord with standard best practices of the company. 

We found no evidence that Mr. Pickens or others associated with this particular request made 

efforts to “negotiate a compromise, or otherwise convince XCast to produce any more materials.” 

XCast has no information or evidence that Mr. Pickens ever contacted XCast again.

 XCast has responded to previous requests from law groups associated with the matter of 

Chavat v. Travel Services , including a party named Anthony Paronich. Our records indicated 

that XCast sent to the Broderick Law firm certain legally permissible documents on January 11, 

2013. There was some apparent confusion when communication was initially sent to a “Mr. Hill”

and XCast has never had an employee by that name. It is my understanding that Mr. Paronich 

was informed during a subsequent phone calls in late 2012 that XCast was restrained under the 

requirements several statues--including the Storage Communications Act--from disclosing certain 

information except under court order and in the case of SCA with proper show cause for criminal 

activity. (See attached.)

 Around April 10, 2013, XCast received an unsigned subpoena submitted by one Edward 

A. Brokerick regarding a different--but apparently related--matter in which they requested that 

XCast reveal the identity of a subscriber whose calls might have passed through the XCast’s 

switch on a May 2, 2008. (XCast was not formed until after that date and would not necessarily 

have access to call records from the company whose assets XCast acquired.) It appears that this 

is the matter under consideration for a current Order to Compel.

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 142-4 Filed: 06/28/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:1603
Finally, this motion indicates that XCast has not lodged any objections to producing the sought 

documents. It is my information and belief that this is incorrect. The company has explained in 

some detail in conversations with Mr. Paronich that the company is constrained under federal 

statutes regarding the nature of information it can release. Also, it is not true that producing these 

documents “is not overly burdensome to XCast.” XCast is a small company with limited 

resources and no legal staff. Producing the records requested in this very broad and shifting 

discovery could be quite burdensome. And of course the request would need to conform to 

federal statutes which aggressively restrain our release of private information.

To be clear, XCast is a third party in this apparently complex matter. The company will 

cooperate fully in any legal process within the constraints regarding our own limitations as 

spelled out in multiple federal statutes regarding the release of certain information held by 

carriers. However, I should point out that XCast is not likely to have in its possession—or ever 

had in its possession—certain of the data requested in this latest May 22, 2013 motion, given that 

XCast's role was simply as a transport mechanism.

 Given this information, it is my hope that you will immediately withdraw this motion so 

that I might have an opportunity to discuss the matter next week with our outside counsel. I 

believe that if we can clarify the matters I have raised in this email, the interests of all parties can 

be addressed in an efficient and legally permissible way.

Thank you,

Patricia Mathis

310.861.4700, extension 5350

On 6/28/2013 7:22 PM, Anthony Paronich wrote:

Ms. Sears and Mathis and Mr. Nelson:

Attached please find an Order signed by Judge Zagel from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois compelling a response from XCast Labs, Inc. to the attached 

subpoena.

In response to a previous Order from this same Court, XCast produced the attached .xls 

spreadsheet. Among other things, it is now appropriate for XCast to produce the same report for 

all outbound calls made by Resort Marketing Group or any of its other iterations from October 9, 

2008 to date. See Request Nos. 6 and 8. It is also appropriate to produce all invoices sent to those 

entities as well as any e-mails that your company was a sender or recipient of. See Request Nos. 2 

and 8. Also included should be any and all contracts entered into by Resort Marketing Group. 

See Request No. 1. Finally, any other lists or compilations of number called by Resort Marketing 

Group should also be produced. See Request Nos. 5 and 7. Finally, any communications you 

received from any attorneys or parties should be produced. See Request No. 9.

The Order signed by Judge Zagel is effective immediately, so please e-mail over all of the 

requested information by the close of business on July 3, 2013.

I’m writing to XCast Labs directly because you’ve never provided us with contact information of 

any attorney who represents you. If XCast Labs is going to be represented by an attorney in 

connection with this production, please pass along that contact information immediately.

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 142-4 Filed: 06/28/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:1604
Regards,

----

Anthony Paronich

Associate

Broderick Law, P.C.

125 Summer St., Suite 1030

Boston, MA 02110

[p] (508) 221-1510

[f] (617) 830-0327

This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are 

not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to 

the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying 

of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please 

immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer.

Case: 1:12-cv-05746 Document #: 142-4 Filed: 06/28/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:1605