and Ankner are personally registered to conduct business and indeed conducting business in the same
area as the misappropriated trade secrets in Pennsylvania (Miller Aff.); and 2) the Defendants’
knowledge of the intellectual property and its situs in this Commonwealth. (Koresko Aff.).

On June 24, 2004, Plaintiffs served by hand delivery Responses and Objections to
Traveler’s Request for Documents and Answers and Objections to Traveler’s Interrogatories, which
included specifics questions and asked Plaintiffs to disclose information regarding trade secrets.
(Miller 6/30/04., Ex. “B”). As part of the Objections, Plaintiffs included the general objection:
“Answering Party objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that is
confidential, including but not limited to, trade secrets, client lists, marketing material, intellectual
property, work product, and other proprietary information. Answering Party will provide certain
confidential information upon the execution and entry of the Stipulation and Protective Order by the
above-captioned Court or such other tribunal lawfully authorized to enter such Order.” (Miller Aff.,
Ex. B, at 3, 94). As part of the Response, Plaintiffs enclosed a “Proposed Stipulated Protective
Order”. (Miller 6/30/04 Aff., Ex. “C”).

The parties have been negotiating the terms of the “Proposed Stipulated Protective
Order.” Due to the unique situation with this case, Plaintiffs requested an extension to the “Joint
Proposed Discovery Plan.” Defendants oppose any extension. Plaintiffs also proposed a stay of
depositions and the production of confidential material pending entry of a protective order, but the
CJA Defendants oppose such and Travelers has not responded.

i. ARGUMENT

This Court has broad discretion to determine the conduct of discovery in this case.

See, e.g., Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. Ctr., 554 A.2d 954, 958 (Pa. Super Ct. 1989) (“trial court is

1997); Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F. 3d 865, 872 (2d Cir. 1995); Feinberg v. Central Asia Capital Corp., 936
F. Supp. 250, 255 n. 4 (E.D. Pa. 1996).

4 The Affidavit of Virginia I. Miller, Esquire, in Support of Motion For Extension of Time and Limited
Stay is being filed herewith. (“Miller (6/30/04) Aff.”).

PHIDOCS-37936.1


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that at my direction a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Extension of Time and Limited Stay Pending Protective Order, proposed order, and

Memorandum in Support was hand delivered to:

2D

ved

DIANE SIEGEL DANOFF
DECHERT LLP

1717 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
ATTORNEY FOR THE TRAVELERS LIIFE AND ANNUITY COMPANY

CRAIG R. TRACTENBERG

NIXON PEABODY LLP

1818 Market Street, 11" Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

ATTORNEY FOR JEFF BLEIWEIS; RAYMOND ANKNER; CJA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DATED: June 30, 2004 By: Y { fl

Virginia I. Miller (I.D. No. 85361)

PHIDOCS-37936.1


On May 7, 2004, Defendants CJA, Bleiweis and Ankner filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b) claiming that they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in this
Commonwealth. In support of that motion, CJA and Ankner filed affidavits in which they stated that
they did not have contacts with Pennsylvania sufficient to subject them to the jurisdiction of its
courts. (See Ankner Aff.).

On May 13, 2004, the parties filed a Joint Proposed Discovery Plan based upon Judge
Dalzell’s imminent conference. The Joint Proposed Discovery Plan called for a very aggressive
discovery schedule, including depositions on July 1 and 2, with fact discovery ending on August 18,
2004. (Miller Second Aff.).

On May 28, 2004, this Court granted Defendants CJA, Bleiweis and Ankner’s motion
finding a lack of personal jurisdiction. In its opinion, the Court overlooked the verified complaints
status as an affidavit? and stated that Plaintiffs had not submitted any evidence in support of their
position that this Court had personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

On June 11, 2004, Judge Dalzell recused himself and vacated the orders in this case.

Notwithstanding the Verified Complaint’s status,’ on June 15, 2004 and June 24,

2004, Plaintiffs filed various affidavits attesting to the jurisdiction and venue including that: 1) CJA

2 In the Verified Complaint, Plaintiffs introduced the following evidence of CJA’s, Bleiweis’, and
Ankner’s contacts with Pennsylvania which subject them to the jurisdiction of this Court:

a) Defendant CJA Associates, Inc., (“CJA”) solicited business in Montgomery County.
(Ver. Compl. § 8.).

b) Bleiweis and Raymond Ankner (“Ankner”) are employees of CJA and regularly do
business in Pennsylvania. (See Ver. Compl. {ff 6, 7, 8, 9).

c) CJA, Bleiweis and Ankner sold life insurance products in Pennsylvania, including
without limitation, variable universal life insurance policies. (Ver. Compl. { 9).

d) Bleiweis and Ankner control CJA and solicited and marketed the use of variable
insurance contracts in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. (Ver. Compl. §{ 51, 54).

e) Defendant Jeffrey Bleiweis (“Bleiweis”) serves as Senior Vice President and General
Counsel of Defendant CJA; Bleiweis’ article entitled “412(i) Defined Benefit Fully Insured Plans” (“the
article”) was published and distributed in the June 2003 issue of “Business Compensation and Planning.”
(Ver. Compl. {9 6, 50).
3 Plaintiffs also point that the Court failed to note that Plaintiffs filed a verified complaint, which has the
same force and effect as an affidavit. In fact, a Verified Complaint in and of itself may be sufficient to
support a finding of personal jurisdiction. LDM Systems, Inc. v. Russo, 1997 WL 431005 (E.D. Pa.

PHIDOCS-37936.1


in best position to weigh fairly competing needs and interests of parties affected by discovery; unique
character of discovery process requires that the trial court have substantial latitude to fashion
protective orders”). Accord Stich v. United States, 730 F.2d 115, 117-18 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 917 (1984) (“the conduct of discovery is . . . committed to the sound discretion of the district

court”); Arnold Pontiac-GMC, Ine. v. General Motors Corp., 786 F.2d 564, 568 (3d Cir. 1986).

This case has an unusual history including filing in state court with a companion
defamation case against one set of defendants, removal to federal court prior to Plaintiffs’ attempts to
consolidate the two actions, lengthy requests for extensions to file responses by Defendants that
Plaintiffs granted, the entry and dismissal of parties, and the previous judge’s recusal that vacated the
prior orders in the case.

Despite Traveler’s assertion that Plaintiffs should have foreseen these events prior to
agreeing to the Joint Proposed Discovery Plan, Plaintiffs could not and did not foresee these events.
Accordingly, Defendants have refused to any extension. The interests of justice demand that
Plaintiffs be given additional time due to these unforeseen events. An extension of sixty (60) days is
not unreasonable and is keeping with this Court’s view that all such motions should be filed “before
the deadline” and as soon as an extension becomes necessary.

Additionally, now in discovery, absent a confidentiality order, Travelers asks
Plaintiffs to tell all about its trade secrets and other proprietary information such as client lists that
are protected by Pennsylvania law. (See Miller Sec. Aff., Ex. “B”). "A trade secret may consist of
any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one's business, and gives
him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it." Hyman
Cos. v. Brozost, 119 F. Supp.2d 499, 503 (E.D. Pa. 2000)(citing Felmlee v. Lockett, 351 A.2d 273,
277 (Pa. 1976)). Even in the absence of a restrictive covenant, an owner of proprietary information
can enjoin the competitive use of such confidential information obtained as a result of the trust and

confidence of a previous relationship with another party. See West Mtn. Poultry Co. v. Gress, 455

PHIDOCS-37936.1


ee

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John. J. Koresko, V and PennMont Benefit
Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs,

v.

Jeff Bleiweis, Raymond Ankner, CJA and
Associates, Inc., and The Travelers Life and
Annuity Company

Defendants.

(a)

Civil Action No. 04-CV-00769

FiLeo
Vegi 4
/ nz, Cierk

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE JOINT PROPOSED DISCOVERY
PLAN AND LIMITED STAY PENDING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs, by their counsel, file this Motion for an Extension of Time to the Joint

Proposed Discovery Plan and Stay Pending Jurisdiction. Due to Judge Dalzell’s vacating

previous orders, the proprietary information involved, and pending motions, Plaintiffs would

request an extension of sixty (60) days to the Joint Proposed Discovery Plan filed on May 13,

2004. Plaintiffs also request that all depositions and production of confidential material be

stayed pending the entry of a stipulated protective order agreed to by all parties.

June 30, 2004
DATED

PHIDOCS-37936.1

Respectfully submitted,

ye

VIRGINIA MILLER (LD. No. 85361)

ANDERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C.
1600 Market Street, 25" Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 568-4202


A.24 651 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983); Air Prods. & Chems., Inc. v. Johnson, 442 A.2d 1114 (Pa. Super. Ct.

1982); Hyman Cos., 119 F. Supp.2d at 504. "[W]ith or without a covenant addressing the subject of
proprietary information, an employer is entitled to protection of its confidential information to the
extent that the information is of such character as to be protectable under the common law of unfair
competition or agency." Bell Fuel Corp. v. Cattolico, 544 A.2d 450, 458 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988), alloc.
denied, 554 A.2d 505 (Pa. 1989). A trade secret and the confidential! nature of intellectual property
can be destroyed and deemed public by the lack of protection of it by the holder. See id. As such,
the entry of a protective order is essential to this case. The parties are negotiating a stipulated
protective order and are close to agreement. Plaintiffs would expect that the stipulated protective
order will be finalized by the parties no later than July 7, 2004, and at such time presented to the
Court. (Miller. 6/30/04 Aff.). Accordingly, this Court should grant a limited stay of all depositions

and the production of confidential material until parties have executed the protective order.

Respectfully submitted,

June 30, 2004 b ¢ f le
DATED VIRGINIA MILLER (I.D. No. 85361)

ANDERSON KILL & OLICK, P.C.
1600 Market Street, 25" Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

(215) 568-4202

PHIDOCS-37936.1


_IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

John, J. Koresko, V and PennMont Benefit Civil Action No. 04-CV-00769
Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs,

Vv.

Jeff Bleiweis, Raymond Ankner, CJA and
Associates, Inc., and The Travelers Life and
Annuity Company

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE JOINT PROPOSED DISCOVERY
PLAN AND LIMITED STAY PENDING PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs, John J. Koresko, V (“Koresko”)and PennMont Benefit Services, Inc.,
(“PennMont”) respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for an
Extension and Limited Stay.

I. INTRODUCTION

The subject matter of this case involves confidential materials, including trade secrets
and other protected intellectual property. The parties are negotiating a stipulated protective order.
Defendants are maintaining that depositions scheduled for this week and next week should be held
and not postponed even if a protective order is not agreed to and entered. To protect the Plaintiffs’
intellectual property and other proprietary information, a protective order is essential.

Due to Judge Dalzell’s vacating previous orders, the proprietary information
involved, and pending motions, Plaintiffs request an extension of sixty (60) days to the Joint

Proposed Discovery Plan filed on May 13, 2004. Plaintiffs also request that all depositions and

PHIDOCS-37936.1


production of confidential material be stayed pending the entry of a stipulated protective order agreed

to by all parties.

Il. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Statement of Facts

This is an action for defamation, misappropriation of trade secrets, commercial
disparagement, intentional interference with contract, interference with existing business
relationship, interference with prospective business relationship and civil conspiracy. (See Ver.
Compl.).

Defendant Travelers approached Plaintiff John Koresko, about one of his inventions,
pretended that it wanted to learn more about that invention because it wanted to do business with
Koresko, used false pretenses to obtain Koresko’s trade secrets and confidential proprietary
information and then gave that information to one of Koresko’s direct competitors. Travelers knew
that the information that Koresko gave it was confidential and that it only received that information
because it did not voice any objection to keeping that information confidential. (See Ver. Compl.).

The essence of the Complaint is the wrong ascribed to Travelers in obtaining
confidential proprietary business information and intellectual property from Plaintiffs and then giving

that information to one of Plaintiffs’ competitors CJA. (See Ver. Compl.).

B. Procedural History

On January 23, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Verified Complaint which conformed to the
stringent fact pleading rules of the Court of this Commonwealth.' That Complaint was verified by
Lawrence Koresko, an officer of Penn-Mont. (See Compl.).

On February 23, 2004, Defendant The Travelers Life and Annuity Company

(“Travelers”) filed a notice of removal. On March 29, 2004, Travelers filed a Motion to Dismiss.

' The Complaint was initially filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County and as such,
conformed to the fact pleading requirements set forth by Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019. That Complaint was also
verified by Lawrence Koresko.

PHIDOCS-37936.1