Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-2 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-2 Filed 06/15/18 Page 2 of 8
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

R.O. vs. Medalist Holdings, LLC

56

MR. PFAU: The last word is this: The

Medalist defendants, in a sense, did not exist until the

motion to withdraw.

And as to the now new Backpage defendants --

THE COURT: Counsel, what do you mean they

did not exist?

MR. PFAU: Well, in this sense, Your

Honor, when they answered the discovery and Counsel made the

distinction of what's in J.S. and what's not. I won't

reargue that other than to say I don't need to because there

are answers to interrogatories that are misrepresentations,

and there are requests for admissions that are

misrepresentations and those misrepresentations are answered

on behalf of the corporate defendants. This law firm has

represented all the defendants in this litigation until the

plea deal.

THE COURT: So let me ask you this: In

regards to the interrogatories, did you receive separate

responses, one from Backpage.com, the Backpage defendants,

and one from Medalist Holdings?

MR. PFAU: No, we did not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So throughout this proceeding,

responses and representations have been made to -- from the

defendants, which were Backpage.com and Medalist Holdings,

represented by Davis Wright Tremaine as a whole.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-2 Filed 06/15/18 Page 3 of 8
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

R.O. vs. Medalist Holdings, LLC

57

MR. PFAU: That's right, Your Honor, with

the caveat, as Counsel pointed out, that in an objection,

they said not all defendants have the knowledge but what --

that's not an appropriate response because, as Counsel

knows, counsel and client have a duty of reasonable inquiry;

so, Larkin and Lacey and the Medalist defendants have been

defendants in this case. They've been defendants in other

cases, and they have watched as the United States Senate

voted, you know, 96-0 to hold them in contempt. It has

always been the Backpage defendants. That's why there's

grounds to sanction both.

If you're inclined to separate them, Your Honor, I would

point out that with the -- what I'll call -- now, we're

calling the Backpage defendants, we have filed a motion for

sanctions. No lawyer has showed up. No response has been

filed because there won't be one. It's essentially

unopposed. The motion, if we're going to now at least

conceive of them as different defendants, I think there is

grounds on this record to sanction the Medalist defendants

for their -- for the false discovery responses; and if Your

Honor, for some reason, is not willing to sanction them, we

need discovery responses from them telling them what of the

various Medalist Holdings or Medalist defendants knew about

this, didn't know about this, not giving us evidence that's,

basically, Ferrer's contradictory statements. We know he

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-2 Filed 06/15/18 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-2 Filed 06/15/18 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-2 Filed 06/15/18 Page 6 of 8
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

R.O. vs. Medalist Holdings, LLC

66

The question, then, becomes what happens to the R.O. vs.

Medalist Holdings case as we have a trial date of October

2018? And I'll hear from Counsel.

MR. PFAU: Your Honor, Plaintiffs, at this

juncture, would like to hold the trial date until we can --

obviously, there has been a sea shift in terms of lawyers

involved and our ability to get discovery. If Your Honor

would indulge us and let us hold the trial date until we can

determine who's going to appear on behalf of the Medalist

Holdings. I'm confident no one will appear on behalf of the

Backpage defendants, and we can address that later; but I

would like to hold the trial date, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And what I'd like, Counsels,

is because my ruling came on a special-set, I am going to

ask that we set a hearing for presentation of an order for

me to review so that my findings are entered into the

record, so I will be on recess next week, so I would ask

that it be set upon my return.

MR. PFAU: And, Your Honor, just so I'm

clear, sanctions were applied against all defendants;

correct?

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. PFAU: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I did not separate; it's one

as far as my order goes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-2 Filed 06/15/18 Page 7 of 8
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

R.O. vs. Medalist Holdings, LLC

72

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE

_________________________________________________________

R.O., by and through her mother, )

S.H., and K.M., by and through )

her mother, L.M., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. 17-2-04897-1

)

vs. )

)

MEDALIST HOLDINGS, INC., et al. )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________________________________

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

_________________________________________________________

STATE OF WASHINGTON )

) ss.

COUNTY OF PIERCE )

I, Kimberly A. O'Neill, Court Reporter in the state

of Washington, county of Pierce, do hereby certify that

the foregoing transcript is a full, true, and accurate

transcript of the proceedings and testimony taken in the

matter of the above-entitled cause.

DATED this 5th day of June, 2018.

Kimberly A . O ' Neill

_____________________________

KIMBERLY A. O'NEILL, CCR

License No. 1954

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 197-2 Filed 06/15/18 Page 8 of 8