Free Affidavit in Opposition to Motion - District Court of California - California

C se 3:07-cv—O2748-l\/IHP Document 103-2 Filed O2/15/2008 Paget oft `
I i Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a copy of a September 7, 2007 email that Lillge sent to customer
- . 2 contacts. These Liiige communications suggest that people should not do business with us.
3 Because of the Court order, I was powerless to respond, despite how grossly unfair it was for
1 4 loillge to take uncontested potshots at us in- the marketplace. In response to these
5 communications, as well as telephone conversations with isillge in which he also tried to
r 6 discourage people from doing business with Branding Boulevard some of our eustomers asked I
7 Christina or me if they were allowed to do business with us. For those who asked, we reassured
8 them that they were allowed to buy from ns. What I do not know is how many people never in
9 asked and ciecicled not to buy From us hecause they accepted Li1lge’s statements that a Court order
li) forbade it. - i i
Z ll 8. Gina Lee is one ofthe customer contracts who responded to Christina’s departure
i I2 announcement. Because she responded and asked where Christina. was going, we considered her ·
Q? 13 to he someone that we were allowed to solicit. There was already dislogue ongoing with her at
14 the time the Court issued the TRO. We would not have tried to get business from her if she had
5 g Es _35 not responded to Cluistinais email announcement. I ·
i ld Executed this liglsy of February 2008 at Berkeley, Calitiornia. i
E8
i E9 ANDREW VERIT ·
gt} 7¤l?5\0Gi\RWARD\l4QT77G.l i I
2i t
22 I _ I i
23 U n
l 24 . i
25 i _ l i
26
27 i p I
28 . I A
. l — 4 -


Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP

Document 103-2

Filed 02/15/2008

Page 1 of 1