to Declaration of Seth I. Appel
in Support of Defendants’ Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Ex Porte Application
Motion to Extend the
Temporary Protective Order
Case No. C 07-2769 JL
Case 3:07-cv-02769-JL Document 41 -2 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 2 of 2
Seth I. Appel
From: Cohen, Jonathan [JCohen@winston.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 5:29 PIVI
To: Seth I. Appel
Cc: Callahan, Robyn
Subject: Re: STV Asia Settlement Proceeds — Ex Parte/Settlement Proposal
Thanks for your response. I look forward to hearing back from you after you connect with
On the issue of the counter—claim, I believe that a court's entry of an order after _
considering the papers effectively shields our client from any claim of abuse of process.
We will set forth the grounds of why we are potentially allowed to attach more than 50%,
in our opposition to your ex parte.
On the final point, I don't really see good cause to have this motion heard on an ex parte
basis, especially when the TPO expires within the next three weeks. Regardless, we will
file our opposition as early in the week as possible. I am sure that Magistrate Larson
will allow us sufficient time to come up to speed and oppose your ex parte. Once we get a
sense of Magistrate Larson's calendar then we can try to arrange a hearing this week or
the following week depending on when and if he wants to hear the matter.
Please also let me know if your side is inclined to allow for early depositions. If your
client is so sure about his position, hopefully we can get into the meat of the case
quickly and see if it can be resolved.
—~——— Original Message —————
From: Seth I. Appel
To: Cohen, Jonathan
Cc: Peter Harvey
Sent: Sat Jun 02 17:00:25 2007
Subject: RE: STV Asia Settlement Proceeds — Ex Parte/Settlement Proposal
I look forward to working with you and your firm, as well. I will need to consider your
offer, and discuss it with Dr. Kim, before responding. In the meantime, allow me to
clarify two points.
First, I told Mr. Trotter we would be willing to stipulate to a hearing on June 8 (that
is, next Friday), not July 8. If Friday doesn't work for you, we would be willing to
stipluate to another day this week. Any such stipulation, of course, would be subject to
the Court's approval.
Second, we have already filed our counterclaim for abuse of process. In light of your
assertion that our claim is verging on frivolous, I invite you to explain to me why Mr.
Nerimofsky believes he is entitled to $4.38 million. (As you know, his own papers make
clear that he claims less than half that amount.)
Seth I. Appel
Harvey Siskind LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor
Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2