Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISIONCASE NO. 10-MD-02183-SEITZ
IN RE: BRICAN AMERICA, LLC, Miami, Florida
EQUIPMENT LEASE LITIGATION September 4, 2014
10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Pages 1 to 95______________________________________________________________
STATUS CONFERENCEBEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICIA A. SEITZ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
FOR PETER M. RONALD PENDL GOSSETT, ESQ.BLAUZVERN, et al.: ROBERT GOSSETT, ESQ.
GOSSETT & GOSSETT4700 Sheridan Street, Building IHollywood, Florida 33021
FOR STEVEN WIGDOR, DAVID H. CHARLIP, ESQ.et al.: CHARLIP LAW GROUP, LLC
17501 Biscayne BoulevardSuite 501Aventura, Florida 33160
FOR NCMIC FINANCE PHILIP A. NEMECEK, ESQ.CORPORATION: MICHAEL I. VERDE, ESQ.
KATTEN, MUCHIN, ROSENMAN, LLP575 Madison AvenueNew York, New York 10022
CATHERINE RODRIGUEZ, ESQ.FILLER RODRIGUEZ, LLP1688 Meridian Avenue, Suite 900Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 1 of 95
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
2
REPORTED BY: LISA EDWARDS, RDR, CRROfficial Court ReporterUnited States District Court400 North Miami AvenueTwelfth FloorMiami, Florida 33128(305) 523-5499
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 2 of 95
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
3
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 10-2183MD-Seitz, Brican
America, LLC, Equipment Lease Litigation.
Counsel, please state your appearances for the record.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Ronald P. Gossett on behalf of the
Blauzvern Plaintiffs.
MR. ROBERT GOSSETT: Robert Gossett for the Blauzvern
Plaintiffs.
MR. CHARLIP: David Charlip, Wigdor Plaintiffs.
MR. VERDE: Michael Verde for Defendant, NCMIC.
MR. NEMECEK: Philip Nemecek, also for NCMIC.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Catherine Rodriguez on behalf of NCMIC.
THE COURT: And I see Mr. Cole in the back. He doesn't
have to sit back there, you know.
Please have a seat, everyone.
Thank you very much for the papers you filed. Having
read the papers, I'm satisfied that we don't need additional
argument on the motion for reconsideration.
Based on the parties' papers, everyone has always
agreed that the statute applies, but NCMIC makes some
legitimate points. And I will redraft the holder in due course
analysis and issue amended findings of facts and conclusions of
law.
However, the ultimate decision and conclusion that it
is not a holder in due course as to the particular Plaintiffs
will remain the same. I believe that you will see that -- I
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 3 of 95
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
4
went back and read the opinion and I agree with you. It was
not well articulated.
And I can see why you were concerned about things that
I didn't intend to convey and that weren't the basis for the
decision. But I think that I can clarify the basis for the
Court's decision and particularly the relevance of the co-filer
testimony.
But, for now, the parties should proceed on the basis
of the existing findings of facts and conclusions of law. I
will probably be able to get the amended decision out before
the end of this month.
Looking at the proposed next steps, I saw a couple of
discrete issues that I'd like to talk to the parties about.
First, I see that the Plaintiff mentions that there is
an issue of attorneys' fees. But I don't see any basis for the
Plaintiff's claim for attorneys' fees. There was no contract,
no statute and no class.
So what is the basis for your claim for attorneys'
fees?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: In the lease agreements, Judge,
there is a one-way fee-shifting provision to NCMIC and, under
57.105, that becomes reciprocal.
THE COURT: The Plaintiff isn't there yet. I mean,
we've got the reliance issues. And for more than half of the
Plaintiffs, they're out of luck.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 4 of 95
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
5
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes, ma'am. I think it's less
than half. But, yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: And my recollection is that your retainer
agreement with your clients is each one contributed $1,000 to
the pool?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: At the beginning. Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: And I presume you've been keeping time
sheets and things like that.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I most certainly have.
THE COURT: How much -- just as a matter of -- if you
don't want me to put this on the record, that's fine.
How much have both sides spent in the way of attorneys'
fees thus far.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: My Plaintiffs have spent five and
a half million dollars.
THE COURT: How did that happen?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Well, the time slips show that. I
mean, it's the amount of work that went into this.
THE COURT: How much has the Defendant spent?
MR. VERDE: I don't have an exact number, but I believe
we've spent closer to three. It might be a little bit more
than that.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the
answer.
MR. VERDE: Closer to three, maybe more than three. I
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 5 of 95
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
6
don't have an exact number right now.
THE COURT: I'm feeling very shocked and guilty. This
case has got to come to an end. I don't know how much you all
want to continue to spend on attorneys' fees, but I just don't
see the benefits for the continuation of what you all have
outlined.
Let me look at the two issues. One are the
counterclaims by the Defendant and the other are the problems
that the Plaintiff has on the reliance issues.
Mr. Verde, what is the legal basis for a contribution
claim here? As I looked at the allegations, it said only if
NCMIC was held liable. But NCMIC is not liable for anything.
So what is the basis for contribution?
MR. VERDE: At the time we wrote that, your Honor, we
had claims for money damages that the Plaintiffs had brought
against us. That was one of the many theories in this case,
that there was a claim for money damages.
We also put that in since the Court is dealing with the
declaratory judgment action, declaring the rights of all the
parties. What we expected was that there would be -- it would
be more efficient in the course of hearing all the testimony.
Again, this being put in at the beginning -- this case
has changed substantive many times over since then. We thought
it would make -- if we were going to have significant testimony
from the Plaintiffs, that we could get those issues dispensed
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 6 of 95
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
7
with now rather than go back to Iowa with the potential for
money judgments and then have to do it all over again and get
all the Plaintiffs to come into Iowa.
That still seems to make the most sense. If we're
going to have the Plaintiffs testify, it wouldn't be that much
of a burden to also ask those Plaintiffs who were referring
doctors or who received referrals what they understood, what
they said and what they were told.
THE COURT: And this is the 274 Plaintiffs?
MR. VERDE: Well, it's more like 650 that are still
viable Plaintiffs -- I'm sorry -- that did the referrals. Yes.
I'm sorry. Yes.
THE COURT: Right. Okay.
As I looked at the parties' submissions as to how we go
forward here and Plaintiff gives me a proposed judgment that
refers to Exhibits A, B and C and D and then I don't get A, B,
C and D, I'm now looking at -- how do we figure out which
Plaintiffs are in which group, which are out, which may -- but
I still don't see how a contribution claim is going to exist.
You would sort of have to concede you were a joint
tortfeasor here to get contribution besides the fact that a
contribution is a joint tortfeasor saying, "Okay. I may have
done something to contribute to this, but you also contributed
to it. And so, therefore, you need to make the payment."
So assuming we get by the initial question of how is
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 7 of 95
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
8
there a contribution claim if you are not liable to pay
anything --
MR. VERDE: Right.
THE COURT: -- because the finding is simply that you
cannot -- if the Plaintiff proves reliance, that you're not a
holder in due course.
MR. VERDE: I take your point, your Honor. But we
still have Brican itself as a viable Defendant here. And
Brican is represented by a trustee. And I don't want to be
subject to a claim by the Brican trustee without having taken
all the steps to protect ourselves.
THE COURT: So maybe I should come back and then look
at the Plaintiffs' claims against Brican.
With all due respect -- I recognize we're all lawyers,
we've got to cross the Ts, dot the Is, provide for all
contingencies -- but at the end of the day, how is the
Plaintiff going to collect from Brican?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: If we have a judgment against
Mr. Vincent, he owns property in the Caribbean Island that he
paid $14 million for. We will execute on that property.
THE COURT: So what -- there's a default already?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: There is not.
THE COURT: So how much time is this going to take to
bring to conclusion?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Well, I doubt very much more time
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 8 of 95
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
9
because, as I said in my filings, we are working on a motion
for summary judgment against the Brican Defendant based upon
the testimony you've already heard.
Now, they were excused from participating in trial.
They will need to come up with summary judgment evidence to
defeat ours, and I don't think they'll be able to.
THE COURT: But that doesn't have anything to do with
Mr. Verde.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: It does not.
THE COURT: You were saying that you are going to move
to dismiss the contribution claim. I don't want just to have
briefing on this. I want to have argument right now.
Tell me what are the grounds for dismissing the
contribution claim. Let's flesh it out right now so that, if
Mr. Verde is going to pursue it, then it's at least in the
proper pleading stage.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: May I have a minute to review what
I've done already?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Thank you, your Honor.
The first step is what the Court's already pointed out.
The Court's findings of fact and conclusion of law does not
impose any liability on NCMIC, thus NCMIC has nothing to pursue
in its counterclaims by the way of contribution.
Further, in the discovery phase of the MDL action,
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 9 of 95
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
10
NCMIC completed discovery on some of the counterclaims, asking
some of the counterclaim Defendants what their interaction was
with the doctors they referred the program to.
THE COURT: Which Plaintiffs were those, or
Counterdefendants?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I don't remember off the top of my
head, but I can find those.
But of those that were asked, it was simply a matter
of, "I gave the salesperson names of friends of mine who were
dentists," for instance, "and she took those names. And the
contact I had with those people, if any, was simply to tell
them that she would be contacting them and they should meet
with her."
There was no interaction between the doctors where the
doctor was attempting to sell any of the Brican equipment to
the second doctor, the referred doctor.
Those were -- your Honor, you asked me who they were,
and I do have that list now. Michael Barbieri in his
deposition transcript at Page 70, Lines 5 through 21.
Dr. Peter Blauzvern. There are several portions of his
deposition: Page 21, Line 8, to Page 22, Line 2; Page 29,
Line 15, to Page 30, Line 3; Page 30, Line 17 --
THE COURT: Just list the --
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Okay. The next is Dr. Yuri Elias.
The next is Dr. Sharon Haas.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 10 of 95
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
11
The next is Dr. Angela Johnson.
The next is Dr. Kenneth Korpan.
THE COURT: How do you spell that?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: K-o-r-p-a-n.
The next is Dr. Donald Neumann.
And the last one is Dr. Vijay -- V-i-j-a-y -- Patel.
THE COURT: Did the Defendant choose those eight as
sort of a representative sample or did the Plaintiff provide
them as a representative sample for the counterclaim? How were
those eight chosen?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Defendants chose whom they wanted
to depose. And I believe they were chosen because those that
were -- those Plaintiffs which were deposed were initially
proposed as class representatives.
THE COURT: And, of these, which ones are still viable
Plaintiffs? Are there any on this list that have been
foreclosed because they are the three-column lease with
Versions No. 1 through 4 or No. 6?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: It'll take me a second to answer
that, but I can answer that in just a minute.
Dr. Barbieri is a one-column lease and Marketing
Version 5. So he's still a Plaintiff who has prevailed.
THE COURT: How about Blauzvern?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I believe Blauzvern is as well,
your Honor.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 11 of 95
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
12
THE COURT: So's a one-column.
And which version?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: That I'm finding.
It's 5. Marketing Version 5.
THE COURT: Elias?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Elias, I believe, is Mr. Charlip's
client and I -- no. I'm sorry. I do have his information
here.
One-column lease, Marketing Version 5.
THE COURT: Haas?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I believe that Sharon Haas is a
Brican Financial Plaintiff. So she is not involved at all with
NCMIC.
THE COURT: So she's out?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: No.
THE COURT: Her claim is only against Brican?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Brican Financial Services. Yes,
ma'am.
THE COURT: So she's -- as far as the Plaintiff is
concerned, they're proceeding against her?
MR. ROBERT GOSSETT: As far as the Defendants, your
Honor?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: NCMIC has no relationship to
Dr. Haas whatsoever.
THE COURT: Where did she get her loan from?
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 12 of 95
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
13
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Brican Financial Services.
THE COURT: And who had that?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: That was done after the cutoff of
funding --
THE COURT: Oh, okay.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: -- when Brican kept selling and
used some of its money to fund --
THE COURT: So she's not really as part of -- okay.
I've got it.
Angela Johnson?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: She is a one-column lease,
Marketing Version 4.
THE COURT: Okay. Korpan?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: One-column lease, Marketing
Version 8.
THE COURT: Neumann?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Is that your client, David?
MR. CHARLIP: Yes.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I don't have the information for
Donald Neumann about that.
Do you have that handy?
MR. CHARLIP: I'll check.
One column. Version 8.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: And then the last is Vijay Patel,
who was a former Catanzarite client, now my client, and he has
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 13 of 95
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
14
one column and Marketing Agreement 5.
THE COURT: I read a number of 50 or 60 --
19 depositions the Defendants took.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Your Honor, if I could put this in
context, we did discovery shortly after the Plaintiffs had
agreed and you had ordered this would be a paper case only.
At that point, it looked like what was being said as a
sales pitch was really not going to be relevant to this case
anymore.
And with all the 1200 Plaintiffs, it didn't make
economic sense to go out and just start deposing Plaintiffs.
This has been expensive and we were trying to control costs.
So we deposed the named -- you know, the proposed class
representatives and then we tried to get a cross-section of
some people in different locations, different states, and some
people who had done referrals. It was deeply unscientific. It
was just to get an idea of what the doctors would say.
But, again, the main thing the doctors would be
testifying about would be what they were told, heard,
understood in the sales pitch. And we were told at that point
that that was not going to be part of the case; and, so, we
limited our discovery accordingly.
And we did ask questions on those who were referrals
about the referrals, but that wasn't really the focus of the
deposition. And there are some doctors out there who got --
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 14 of 95
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
15
who did significant referral work.
You'll recall that Dr. Castillo, who's the only
Plaintiff actually to have testified in this case, said that
another dentist -- I think it was next door or across the hall
or something -- came to him and told him how great the system
was and it was terrific and it was free.
So there is -- I don't know how much you can really
conclude from this very limited sampling. But if we're going
to go to specifics, the one doctor who testified here said that
he only became interested in this because another dentist came
to him and said, "You've really got to check this out."
THE COURT: Do you plan on continuing with your
counterclaim? Do you want to think about it?
MR. VERDE: If we could, your Honor, because there
is -- it's not purely for contribution. There's also an
equitable subrogation claim that's in there.
THE COURT: But, again, you also proceeded on the basis
that if you were found liable.
MR. VERDE: Well --
THE COURT: Because there's really nothing that you --
I mean, if you're out of pocket in legal fees and in the money
that you put forth, but you don't have to give anything else --
I mean, what's the basis for these legal theories?
MR. VERDE: Because if -- the equitable subrogation is
not purely a contribution claim, like on a tortfeasor. And
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 15 of 95
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
16
you're correct. I believe we put that in there specifically
because, if we have suffered a loss, even if it's not a loss
within the context of the lawsuit, we have a right to get
contribution.
And if the claim here is that we do not get repaid
because we knew or should have known that this was too good to
be true, we knew or should have known that there was never --
this was not financially viable, that there was an intent never
to pay, other -- the other doctors who are out there shilling
their --
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Start over again --
MR. VERDE: Sure.
THE COURT: -- just so that I'm making sure that I'm
following you.
MR. VERDE: Sure.
There is an actual loss -- there's going to be -- if
the rulings against NCMIC are upheld, there's going to be an
actual loss of money.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. VERDE: We will have put out 25,000 over -- not
getting any of it back.
THE COURT: And that's a significant hit, which I
understand.
MR. VERDE: Very significant hit.
And if the theory behind it is that we knew or should
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 16 of 95
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
17
have known that there was never an intent to perform because of
the way this was structured, that the payments from Visl Lasic
would not possibly continue, the doctors who actually
interacted with the salesmen, who had the opportunity to ask
questions, who had the opportunity to find out -- I mean, the
classic example would be the dentist in Minnesota who happily
is receiving marketing payments for a clinic in Florida, which
would make no -- which the Court has determined makes no sense.
If that dentist then goes across the hall and tells
another dentist, "Hey, this is a great deal. You need to get
in on it," I don't know how that individual is in any better or
worse position or has any more or less information than NCMIC
had.
And NCMIC is going to suffer a loss because that other
dentist who receives the referral now doesn't have to pay on
the theory that we should have known. Equitable subrogation, I
believe, says that they should share in that pain with us.
They also were in the position to have actually --
actually in a better position than we were to have known what
was going on.
THE COURT: Which ones of the 274 do you think fit into
that category like the doctor that got Dr. Castillo involved?
MR. VERDE: Honestly, your Honor, we don't know because
we limited the deposition in reliance on this being a paper
case. So --
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 17 of 95
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
18
THE COURT: But what you do understand -- let's do
this.
I'm going to grant their motion to amend the
counterclaim and give you an opportunity to file an amended
counterclaim, because that was filed a long time ago. A lot of
water has gone under the bridge, which would affect your theory
and how you want to go.
I would suggest that, as you are refiling it, if you
are looking on active participation under the Iqbal and Twombly
standard, especially since there is sort of an overlay or an
awareness of fraud, that you need to have some facts that
support that "active participation." You know, what does that
mean? What type of facts?
And based upon what you know now, hopefully you can be
a little bit more specific as to what -- you know, granted,
each one will be different. But, ultimately --
MR. VERDE: Your Honor, with -- we're -- I think, if I
understand, you're asking us to give specifics about Plaintiffs
we didn't depose because we were taking discovery in reliance
on an order that their testimony really was not going to be
necessary.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. But now you are seeking
recovery for them for their active participation.
MR. VERDE: Right.
THE COURT: But what do you mean by "active
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 18 of 95
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
19
participation"? I guess that's what I need. Plead some kind
of facts that suggest what is meant by "active participation."
MR. VERDE: Okay. And you're not suggesting that we do
that individually for each of the 247 individuals?
THE COURT: Because I don't think you know now.
MR. VERDE: Right. Okay. I'm sorry. Then, I
misunderstood. Yes. I understand now.
THE COURT: Okay. But there needs to be greater --
right now you just say "active participation." What does that
mean? And did the referral -- it obviously has to go beyond
simply giving the salesperson a list of names so that the
salesperson could later call those people and say, "Your friend
referred." So that, I presume, is not what you're talking
about as "active participation."
MR. VERDE: Right. What we're talking about is some
communication of e-mail -- written, verbal, whatever -- that
says, "You really need to check this out. I bought it. You
should look at it, too."
THE COURT: But how does that then put -- you're going
to have to allege facts that that person who made that "get
involved" had an opportunity to acquire the knowledge that
NCMIC did by the time of October and November of 2008.
To me, by October and November of 2008, NCMIC was in a
position that there were opportunity for it to do an
assessment.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 19 of 95
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
20
What facts do you have to show that the doctors at the
time they were making the referrals had the same amount of
knowledge that NCMIC did?
MR. VERDE: Well, I don't -- I think now we're coming
back to, on an individualized basis, we don't know.
THE COURT: But -- and I understand that. We don't
know individually.
MR. VERDE: Right.
THE COURT: But you will need to show simply -- I don't
know that simply going and saying, "This is the greatest thing
since sliced bread. You should go talk to the guy" -- unless
you know that there are some additional facts that say that you
have a vested interest here or you have some inside knowledge,
I don't know that that's going to get you the active
participation that creates an equitable estoppel
MR. VERDE: Well, they were also paid for these
referrals. Even the ones that just gave the name, they were
paid $400 apiece.
So there's -- I mean, it's not simply that we're
looking to punish somebody because they told a friend about
something they thought was good at the time. They were paid to
make these referrals.
And if I follow -- if I'm following correctly the
Court's logic, in the decision that was issued, the Court said
it should have been self-evident that this was not sustainable.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 20 of 95
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
21
And I go back to sort of --
THE COURT: Well, what works for us should work for the
Plaintiffs.
MR. VERDE: Yes. If you're a dentist in Minnesota and
you have an opportunity to talk to the salesmen and you have
the opportunity to do your own due diligence before you sign
this and you're not a consumer, you're a business --
THE COURT: Right.
MR. VERDE: -- and you look at this and you say to
yourself, "This makes perfect sense to take all this money to
advertise a clinic in Florida" and then you start telling your
friends for $400 apiece, "You should do so, too" -- you know,
we respectfully disagree with the Court's view of what was
obvious to NCMIC at the time.
But what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
If these people had an opportunity to ask the questions and see
all the things that the Court said NCMIC should have seen, had
they bothered to inquire further, I don't see why the same
standard doesn't held to them, especially if they're getting
paid to bring other doctors into the program.
THE COURT: At $400 a pop. And I noticed on one of the
individuals in the -- I can't put my fingers on it right now --
one of Plaintiffs that was listed in somebody's papers -- when
I counted up how many referrals, $23,000 --
MR. VERDE: Correct.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 21 of 95
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
22
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: He was a little bit different than
the others, though, Judge.
THE COURT: Who was that? Which Plaintiff was that?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I don't remember his name. We did
depose him in Pennsylvania. Kushnevis.
MR. VERDE: He's in North Carolina, I think.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes. He was in Charlotte.
MR. VERDE: Right.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: And there was another in
Pennsylvania that was in the similar situation.
What Brican did was look at a geographic area where
they had an interest in opening a spa -- a med spa and then
they would recruit somebody in that area to help tell them
where they should open it, what would work in their area.
They would recruit that doctor by telling that doctor
that he will receive a certain amount of money for every
contract that is signed in his area.
So I think the one that you're looking at that received
$23,000 was Mr. Kushnevis, who received the money based upon
everybody in North Carolina that bought this package without
any contact by him to those people whatsoever.
THE COURT: But he had to give them a list of names or
something like that?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I don't believe he even did that.
I believe it was taken from the registry of dentists in
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 22 of 95
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
23
North Carolina.
There was another -- the doctor in Pennsylvania, who
was supposed to receive the same thing, had the same contract.
It was -- there's a name to that contract. I think they called
it an independent contractor agreement or an independent
advisor agreement. He was supposed to receive the same thing,
and he didn't. He got paid only for those actual referrals
that he made.
But those were outliers. There was another one in
Texas. There were three people that were different than all
the others.
THE COURT: What were -- so those three got
23,000 plus?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: No. The one got 23,000 plus. The
one in Pennsylvania was supposed to receive similar
compensation, but he didn't. He just got paid -- I think it
was eight referrals that he made.
And then the one in Texas -- I don't remember what his
situation was because he was not somebody -- I think he was one
of your clients.
Who was the one in Texas we would bring in for the
trial?
MR. CHARLIP: I don't recall his name.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: When the Court's through with that
area, I need to add, so I'm not accused of interjecting
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 23 of 95
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
24
something else later --
THE COURT: The bottom line is, I don't want a motion
to dismiss.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I understand.
THE COURT: I want him to know now all of the issues
that you're going to raise so that he can address them in the
amended counterclaim --
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes.
THE COURT: -- and we don't have to brief it.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Right. That's why I wanted to
bring this up.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: In the release that was signed in
the settlement of the lawsuit between NCMIC and Brican, there's
a very broad and general description of all the people being
released, and we believe that that release covers these doctors
to have been released from any liability.
THE COURT: What's the language that you're referring
to that releases the doctors? And how would they -- just
simply as a matter of law, how are the Plaintiffs who were
supposedly engaging in an arm's-length deal except for these
doctors that were getting little side benefits -- how are they
released? Or you're just saying the release focuses on the
274?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: No. The release was very broad,
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 24 of 95
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
25
covered a lot more than the Plaintiffs. It covered -- I've got
the language here, but I just touched the screen and it moved.
If I could have Mr. Charlip move it back, I'll give you that
language.
I know the two words that were important in the first
motion to dismiss that was prepared was an allegation that
NCMIC made that the Plaintiffs were agents of Brican and the
release covers agents.
The release was the predecessors, successors, assigns,
affiliates, parent corporations, subsidiaries, companies,
divisions, representatives, principals, partners, officers,
members, directors, employees and attorneys.
So it was the affiliates and the representative
included in that release that we think -- and the release
specifically says that it's intended to be broad.
So we believe that those people may be brought into the
umbra of the people being released by this release. The
release cites that it's to be construed as a broad, general
comprehensive --
THE COURT: Mr. Gossett, with all due respect, sir, I
know you are a zealous advocate. I am sometimes beginning to
feel worn down by all of the new things and theories that you
come up with.
I will admit that I had -- when I sat down and went
through the evidence, although I had not expected to come out
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 25 of 95
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
26
the way that I did, once I sat down and looked at it, I came
out the way that I did.
But if you didn't get the gist in the beginning of the
order of how frustrating it has been and expensive for both of
the parties.... But I don't think I'm going to change any of
the approaches of either side.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: What I just read, Judge, is from a
pleading I filed in April of 2011.
THE COURT: Quite frankly, I don't recall it.
So the other grounds is that you're saying that, if
they plead that they are agents or representatives or use those
words that they are --
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Covered by the release.
THE COURT: -- covered.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: In their first iteration of their
amendment, they removed the word "agent."
THE COURT: Well, if they're making money themselves,
how are they an agent?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: That was their allegation in their
first counterclaim.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Verde?
MR. VERDE: We will amend our pleadings, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let's turn to the more troubling aspect of
how we deal with the reliance issues.
Given all the time and money that the parties have
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 26 of 95
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
27
spent here, I'm feeling very guilty about dumping this on the
judge in Iowa. But I cannot think of a way to address the
reliance issues if -- other than -- this is -- I have two
thoughts.
One is that I require the Plaintiff to begin preparing
individualized affidavits -- individualized -- that set out
each -- disclosing all of the facts and circumstances -- who
was there, what was said, what they did, what facts that they
believe justify their reliance -- and to start doing it on a
rolling basis so that, over the next eight weeks, you do 75 a
week.
And then the Defendant can look at those affidavits and
appoint a series of special masters that I will welcome insight
and I will look for retired state court judges so that I'm not
incurring the private judges' fees, although I don't know if
they would do it and I don't know whether or not they would
want to do it -- that's the problem -- and arrange so that,
once the "direct examination" was all laid out -- and, if
there's any appearance that there's a boilerplate in any one of
them, they will be stricken and that Plaintiff is out -- and
then give the Defendant an opportunity to bring that -- Skype
that person in so that you don't have to travel around
everywhere and that they could then cross-examine that
particular Plaintiff and have the judge make a recommendation
as to whether or not there was justifiable reliance.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 27 of 95
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
28
That's one theory.
But I'd still have to pay these -- if we're going to
bring this thing to a conclusion sooner rather than later, I
would need to have a whole bunch of -- I figure, if I have six
and each one could do 110 or 106, that's a lot of findings of
facts and conclusions that those judges need to do. But you
need to tell me if you've got a better way to do it.
Or the alternative is that, before we undertake that,
we do two things: I send you all to mediation. I don't know
who you've used as a mediator in the past. I can't remember.
I don't know whether or not it would be viable.
I'm going to ask you now: Where were you in the
settlement discussions? What was the Plaintiffs' position
before I ruled on the --
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: In settlement discussions, we
had -- I had sent a letter to Mr. Verde asking him -- I did it
or Mr. Charlip did it -- asking him if NCMIC would be receptive
to a settlement that was less than 100 percent and would be
paid over some period of time. NCMIC was not receptive to
that; so, we didn't go to dollars and cents.
THE COURT: What do you mean by that, "less than
100 percent"?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Well, if a doctor owed $25,000,
for instance, on principal, then if the doctor would be willing
to pay $15,000 and pay $1,000 per month for 15 months, would
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 28 of 95
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
29
NCMIC be amenable to that. Now, we never got to the specifics
of dollars.
THE COURT: Why not?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Because NCMIC wasn't amenable to
anything less than 100 percent.
MR. VERDE: I -- I --
THE COURT: I doubt that, Mr. Gossett. I really doubt
that.
MR. VERDE: Your Honor, if I may, we went to mediation
before Judge Politan, who's a retired federal judge from
New Jersey. He said -- we offered to compromise. He came back
and said, "Plaintiffs are demanding 100 cents on the dollar. I
can't move from that."
We then -- we made settlement offers. We offered to
basically cut this by a third -- the total amount that was owed
by a third. We actually put in a formal settlement offer so
they would be obligated to show it all to their client. We get
back, I think, a grand total of five people who accepted it.
THE COURT: So we've eliminated five at least?
MR. VERDE: We have eliminated five.
THE COURT: Good.
MR. VERDE: But -- so this idea that somehow we were
blocking this, we kept trying --
THE COURT: I truly believe you, Mr. Verde. I see it
in your face. I feel it in my bones.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 29 of 95
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
30
Would it be helpful if I sent you all back? Do you
want me to try and mediate? I need to get out the findings of
fact and conclusions of law before you do that.
I have to share with you, Mr. Gossett, that from the
get-go of this case, there is an element that it's too good to
be true. But I also know how -- that the package and the
proposal that Brican provided was a slick one and was pushing
and what have you.
And I agree that, by October, November, Brican was in a
better position -- I mean, NCMIC was in a better position,
probably, to protect itself and didn't avail itself and, in
fact, increased the number of loans, appearing to simply rely
on the fact that it had a hell or high water clause.
But the Plaintiffs got themselves into this pickle,
too, and the Plaintiffs are not your little naive widow lady.
So they need to accept some responsibility here.
And if they were offering that they would cut it a
third as opposed to going half and half, if your clients were
not grabbing it, then your clients should examine themselves as
to whether or not they have an unrealistic relationship with
money.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I think you misunderstood what
Mr. Verde said. He wasn't offering that they would accept a
third. They would reduce the claim by a third, leaving us to
pay two-thirds of the claim.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 30 of 95
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
31
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Okay? I just wanted to clarify
that.
Judge, I have absolutely no problem going to mediation,
whatever it would take --
THE COURT: If you go to mediation, I want this case
settled.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: But I don't have the ability to do
that. I don't have control over the decisions of 1,010 people.
They individually will make the decision. I will advise them,
but that doesn't mean they're going to take my advice.
It's not as easy as if it had been a class action,
where you would have nine people making --
THE COURT: But I can't do a class action. It's too
individualized.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I understand that.
But what I'm saying is there are 1,010 people making
decisions. It's not me. And I wish I could tell you that
every one of my clients in my 39 years of practicing law has
always followed my advice, but there's not true.
THE COURT: We all have been there. We just give
advice. The client makes the ultimate decision.
How do we bring this thing to conclusion in the most --
in the cheapest way?
MR. VERDE: Your Honor, I advance this with some
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 31 of 95
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
32
trepidation because it's clear --
THE COURT: And I recognize that you want to take an
appeal and I'm, to a certain extent, somewhat in agreement with
maybe that's the best way to go.
MR. VERDE: That's exactly where I'm going.
Before we go down this path -- I mean, look, mediation,
settlement, we're happy to do that with whoever whenever. We
never received a counteroffer. We never received anything. We
were negotiating against ourselves.
So if there's some way to move that along, we're all
for it at any stage of this proceeding. But as far as that
next stage, which we agree with you that it's logistically
going to be a bear to deal with --
THE COURT: And expensive.
MR. VERDE: And expensive.
And all sorts of difficulties are going to arise very
quickly with it.
However, without rearguing a motion for
reconsideration, I think it's fair to say that the law on this
particular section of the UCC, to put it charitably, is sparse.
There's not a lot of guidance.
And there are procedural issues about whether the
Plaintiffs made their bed and should be forced to lie in it,
even whether -- even -- there's basically two levels.
Substantively, we still believe that the common law
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 32 of 95
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
33
standard applies, and the statutes are pretty clear about that.
We also recognize, hey, in words -- in fairness to the Court --
a phrase I don't use often -- but in fairness to the Court,
there's just really not a lot of guidance here because for
whatever reason there's just been nobody arguing about this
issue. And so it's somewhat unclear what's to be done with it.
Compounding it is it's reliant upon the State. This is
a federal statute. It's different. I know the Court cited
your approval of some of the bankruptcy cases where, ironically
enough, the bankruptcy courts, trying to figure out what "good
faith" meant, said, "Well, let's see what the UCC says."
And so they actually tried to use that as one of the
bases of defining what "bankruptcy" means for 538 C cases for
the good-faith defense for fraudulent conveyances.
So it is a bit of a black hole. We understand that the
last say the Florida courts have had on this issue was back in
1986, which does seem -- well, I don't think for anybody here
actually, but it does seem somewhat like anxiety history.
But it's not like the Plaintiffs came back and said,
"No. No. No. There's all these other cases that shed light
on it." There's just been a lingering silence since 1986
through changes of the statute, et cetera.
If we're right that -- on two points -- one is that the
substantive law here that should have been applied was the
Florida common law of Close Connection Plus, or, if we're
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 33 of 95
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
34
right, that even if that's something of a jump ball, the
Plaintiffs --
THE COURT: That's a junk ball?
MR. VERDE: "Jump ball." Basketball.
THE COURT: Oh. Jump ball.
MR. VERDE: Jump ball. Yes.
-- that it's not 100 percent clear, or, if we're right
that -- if it is a jump ball, that it's not clear.
But the Plaintiffs introduced this theory, the
Plaintiffs made it their theory of the case and the Plaintiffs
shouldn't be allowed to change it after they have agreed to
this being an issue we're trying.
And this was a 42(B) case. This was not a trial -- a
plenary trial on all the issues. This was a trial on defined
issues.
And, again, you know, the one thing -- I've chased
Plaintiffs through many theories over four years now. The one
theory I couldn't chase is one that came up after the trial.
That one is beyond me.
THE COURT: The one that came up after the trial?
MR. VERDE: In other words, the idea that we were
trying Close Connection Plus, but now we're actually trying a
statutory basis that was never raised by the Plaintiffs.
So there are two reasons here why this might stand.
And, again, I say this with some trepidation because --
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 34 of 95
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
35
THE COURT: You've persuaded me. I cannot figure out a
way to get my arms around this case and bring to conclusion
without spending more money on both sides.
MR. VERDE: It would be terrible if we got -- if we did
that entire process and then went up on appeal only to be told,
actually, it was Close Connection Plus. Because, as we see it,
that would make all of that effort completely wasted effort.
THE COURT: Well, just a small tip after I went back
and read through all the parties' papers. Well, you'll see it
when it comes out.
MR. VERDE: Okay. But to the extent --
THE COURT: Close Connection Plus is an evidentiary
tool that is still useful with the statute.
MR. VERDE: And I'm -- again, I will stop and shut up
whenever you tell me to, your Honor. But I think where you're
heading is that, even if Close Connection is -- stands in place
of good faith, we still didn't meet the notice requirements.
THE COURT: We didn't meet the notice requirement?
MR. VERDE: The notice requirements of (D) that -- the
Subsection (D) of the statute. Or maybe I completely misread
where you were going with this.
In other words, were you saying that Close Connection
Plus basically is a test for good faith?
THE COURT: It is part -- it is a test -- it is a tool
for helping to evaluate the objective component of good faith.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 35 of 95
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
36
MR. VERDE: Well, okay. That's -- I think that's where
we part company because that -- there have been variations of
that definition throughout the history of the Close Connection
doctrine.
And the cases like Equico and Leasing Corp specifically
don't tie it into the use of the statute. They treat it as a
standalone test.
But --
THE COURT: If you want, you can apply the test, is
basically what I'm saying, and be consistent with the statute.
MR. VERDE: Right.
But to be fair about it, we've been through this.
We've been through the treatises. It's not a particularly
well-developed area of law, somewhat surprising.
So we understand that reasonable minds can differ on
this. But even beyond that, though, if that is what Plaintiffs
were really getting at. Remember, this was -- we were trying
apparent agency. We were briefing about an agency.
You had told them that they needed to get their
pleadings in line while Iqbal and Twombly for the apparent
agency and we got this theory.
And, Judge, we had a jugular issue where you said, "If
there's anything you have -- any theories you have that are
dependent upon NCMIC's knowledge of these -- of the
cancellation provisions, now is it." That's the point of the
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 36 of 95
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
37
jugular issue.
We're now dealing -- we're now here on a theory that is
based upon NCMIC's knowledge. It was never raised. It was
brought up at the last minute. They used Close Connection
Plus --
THE COURT: Wait a minute.
The whole jugular issue was, "What did NCMIC know and
when did it know it?" And that was from the get-go.
MR. VERDE: And what legal -- but the actual jugular --
what legal effect did it have?
THE COURT: Right.
MR. VERDE: So if the theory now is NCMIC knew or
should have known that this was a -- that this was a -- that
there were defenses to payment of this and, therefore, as an
assignee, that blocks their ability to collect, why wasn't that
in the jugular issue?
That is precisely -- you precisely invited all of the
theories that were dependent upon NCMIC's knowledge. That's
why it was the jugular issue. It was supposed to knock out
this case.
And as a result of that, we moved away from something
that involved NCMIC's knowledge and we went to apparent agency,
which was, again, something they raised even though it wasn't
part of the jugular issue. And then we chased that rabbit for
a while and that one was knocked out.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 37 of 95
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
38
And in preparation for a trial on the apparent agency
issue and just the apparent agency, which was the only issue
remaining, you told them to "Clean up your pleadings because
you've not been specific enough" and we've got this brand-new
theory that has never appeared anywhere else.
When pressed on it, they said -- they said Close
Connection Plus. They were the ones who kept pushing Close
Connection Plus.
And as we got further into the case, we sat here and
you said, "I'm tired of chasing theories. Write it down.
We're going to be specific." It was memorialized in the
pretrial order.
And because it's a 42(B) case -- trial, it wasn't a
trial of all the issues when maybe you still have some wiggle
room on changing your theories, but we were trying discrete
issues. And they -- that never changed.
And it was only as we got, literally, I think, a few
weeks before trial, maybe a month before trial -- again, my own
personal commentary -- I think the light bulb went off with the
Plaintiffs that they couldn't possibly meet the issue that they
had teed up. And now suddenly we had this new wave of, "No.
No. No. It's industry standards. It's commercial standards."
Go back and look at the transcripts. This was never
argued. It was never raised. When we said -- we told the
Court we think the three issues that you were teeing up as a
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 38 of 95
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
39
result of your decision back in February was -- were these
three issues, that's because you took their theory and said,
"Okay. Close Connection Plus, I could see why that might be a
factual issue buried there." And that's what we all agreed to
try.
The fact that they might have mentioned this or they
might have said in the weeks before trial, "No. No. No.
There's a commercial component. It's objective, subjective" --
this appeared weeks before trial.
Your Honor, given the fact -- I mean, we have sort of
the graveyard of theories that we've gone through in this case.
We've been chasing theories all over.
Our rule of thumb has been it's not something that
we're arguing about until you tell us it is because, if we just
chased every stray comment, every thought, every variation on a
theme, we'd all be here forever.
So we didn't chase any of that stuff and we had no
reason to expect it was going to be until you told us it would
be.
And because the Close Connection Plus was never changed
in the trial order, it was always the issue we were to be
trying -- there's even a moment on the last day of trial
where -- it's in the transcript -- where I said, "Your Honor,
I'm hearing all sorts of things now about this statute and
meeting the other standards of the statute. We are still
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 39 of 95
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
40
trying Close Connection Plus, aren't we?" and you said, "I'm
not there yet."
So this -- there is a very substantial substantive
issue here that, if the Plaintiffs chose this -- and I think
that they realize that is, in fact, the right standard, which
is why they put it forward to begin with -- unless that issue
was formally changed so that we were told we were trying a
different issue -- if we just started chasing that issue in the
middle of the trial, all we'd be doing is feeding the
pathology. All we'd be doing here is sort of encouraging new
theories.
We -- this thing would have become even more protracted
than it has been. Our only -- the only guideline we've had is
for you to be the gatekeeper and tell us what's an issue and
what's not an issue.
And the actual language of the statute -- again, with
reasonable minds differing as to how it interplays with Close
Connection Plus -- was not the issue that we were trying. We
were trying just Close Connection Plus.
If we had known that there was an industry component, a
commercially reasonable standard component, that we were
trying, which is notably not at all present in Close Connection
Plus, everything we could have done would have been different.
We would have brought in our own expert to tell you
Mr. Krollfeiffer has no idea what he's talking about. He's
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 40 of 95
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
41
been out of the business for --
THE COURT: I think you need to slow down. Lisa is
fast, but he's getting emotional.
MR. VERDE: I'm getting emotional. You're right, your
Honor.
-- that he's not been in this business. He doesn't --
there is no industry standards. We would have brought somebody
in to testify about that if there was a component of industry
standards that was at all present in the issues we were trying.
If you go back to the pretrial order, it's simply not
there.
And so there is a very substantial -- we see a
procedural issue here where, to be blunt, your Honor, we're
been penalized for playing by the rules and not trying to
change the topic and not trying to inject new issues at the
last minute and trying to keep this thing to a manageable
amount by just trying the issues you told us to try.
And so, yes, we feel somewhat aggrieved -- I have to be
honest -- because we feel we've been trying to do that and, in
the end, this idea of injecting new theories and ideas long
after they were due, after you had cut them off, has succeeded.
It's disturbing.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Judge, we are not the ones that
interjected into this case the issue of NCMIC's status as
holder in due course. That has been an issue in this case
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 41 of 95
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
42
since the very first answer filed by NCMIC raising that
affirmative defense.
That affirmative defense was raised in every one of
their answers that they filed, including the answer filed
November 22, 2013, where they claim the waiver of defense
clause was enforceable by them.
Now, you said on January 22, 2014, a year later, in
your order granting in part and denying in part NCMIC's motion
for summary judgment the second question of material fact is
whether NCMIC was a holder in due course of the financing
agreements pursuant to Florida Statute Section 679.4031(2).
It has been their issue that they pled from day one,
and the statute that controls the enforceability of their
affirmative defense has not changed since then.
They've had the -- they should have had -- I'm sure
they did -- knowledge of what the essential elements are of
that affirmative defense since day one.
And our ability to come in -- if they were to prove
that they were a holder in due course under that statute, we
would still have the ability to come in under the Close
Connection Plus doctrine and knock it out if we could prove
that. But they first have to establish that they complied with
the statute.
What we're hearing in Mr. Verde's argument is his
continued insistence that there is a presumption because they
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 42 of 95
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
43
paid value that they were holders in due course.
And as I stated in my submissions, that has not been
the case since the adoption of the UCC. There was a statute
under the NIL which carried with it a presumption. But when
the UCC was adopted, that -- in 1966, that statute was
abrogated.
THE COURT: The NIL? The negotiable instruments law?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: The negotiable instruments law.
And in Florida, we refer to it as the Uniform Negotiable
Instruments Act.
But as a matter of uniformity, it was referred to as
the negotiable instruments law. So he's still arguing that
he's entitled to a presumption that he's a holder in due
course, and that's not the case.
THE COURT: Can I ask a very simple question?
Why can't both sides split the baby down the middle
and the Defendants say to the Plaintiffs, "You pay half and
I'll eat the other half"? Why doesn't that work?
It recognizes sort of the responsibility of each side
getting themselves into this. I just throw it out. I mean,
the Plaintiffs' counsel would really have to start working on
its clients if the Defendant was willing to make that offer.
You don't have to say anything now. I just want you
all to think about that. And I want you all to think about how
much you have had to incur in the way of costs and legal fees
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 43 of 95
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
44
to where we are now and to sort of look at a cost-benefit
analysis of how much do you want to spend and what do you think
you're going to get out of it for both sides. Because this is
a business dispute.
But in the meantime, what I'm going to do is I will
prepare the revision to the findings of facts and conclusions
of law. I appreciate all of the input that the parties have
given me. That should be ready to come out by the end of this
month. I had hoped we could close it down -- the case down.
Does the Defendant want -- what I suggest is that we --
I issue an order to certify it. But if you would do me a favor
and help us by -- because I think it's also beneficial for the
Plaintiff.
Is the Plaintiff objecting if I certify it?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: No. We would just request that
you certify the final judgment that you would be entering on
the summary judgment you've entered so that the other --
THE COURT: I'll send all of it up.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Okay.
THE COURT: But it would be very helpful for me if the
two sides could sort of get together and take a look at what is
the standard that the Eleventh Circuit needs for granting this
and then put it together in a joint memo for me so that I
can -- we'll do our own research and we can tweak it. Because
if we're going to do this, I want to make sure that they accept
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 44 of 95
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
45
it.
MR. VERDE: The standard is the controlling question of
law for which substantial ground for difference of opinion,
which I think pretty much --
THE COURT: We at least have it on that. As to the
first two summary judgments, I don't --
MR. ROBERT GOSSETT: Judicial economy.
MR. VERDE: Well, it's a final judgment. In other
words, so that it's not -- the only -- this -- it would be
basically a final judgment appeal as of right going up in
conjunction with an interlocutory appeal based upon the
substantial question of law about the applicability or how to
interpret the UCC code.
THE COURT: How do I frame the judgment that I enter so
that there is a final judgment -- as to those Plaintiffs so
that there is a final judgment and then we can take care of
that one?
Just help me put it together. I don't need a brief.
What I need is sort of what I enter in the way of a final
judgment so that they can -- then that becomes an appealable
issue, but especially since -- how do we articulate who it
applies to? Those are the issues that I've been grappling
with. I'm not sure how to do it.
And I've got a brain trust that I'm looking at. So I'm
going to take advantage of it.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 45 of 95
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
46
MR. VERDE: We did provide a proposed order in the most
recent submission. And it's somewhat simple because it's --
this is the declaratory judgment case. This is on
Document 577-1.
THE COURT: Let's see.
MR. VERDE: 577. Yes.
THE COURT: I have 577.
MR. VERDE: Last two pages.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. VERDE: And because it's a declaratory -- if this
was an actual final-final judgment, we'd have to be calculating
numbers and having fights about interest rates and what have
you.
But since it's a declaratory judgment action, which
says the declaration is no reason for them not to pay, and then
you can pass this on to the Iowa court to actually figure out
how much everyone owes and how to enforce it. So I think
that's really simple.
THE COURT: How do I save him the effort? At least I
have a law clerk. He doesn't have a law clerk.
MR. VERDE: Well, we kept this -- we just kept it --
since it's a declaratory judgment request, we kept the judgment
to exactly that, a declaration that there is no reason not for
payment.
And we thought you didn't want to get involved in --
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 46 of 95
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
47
THE COURT: No, I don't. But I'd like to make his life
easier. I'd like to make your all's life easier.
And so is -- has -- is there a way that you can come up
with a schedule? Because --
MR. VERDE: You mean a schedule of names or a schedule
of names plus amounts?
THE COURT: Because we have here -- we have those
Plaintiffs who are identified on Schedule A annexed hereto.
And I don't remember -- was --
MR. VERDE: What -- we would rely on the Plaintiffs'
schedule because I don't think there's a disagreement as to
who --
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Right.
MR. VERDE: -- who falls into these categories.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: We have gone through -- remember,
Judge, that you had asked us to or directed us to go through
and agree on the categorizations of each Plaintiff. We have
done that.
The only error that I found in that since then was one
person who has a marketing agreement, Version 6, in print who
actually had changed the language in it.
And I got the marketing agreements out of Brican's
files so I know that that was in the -- the change was
effective as far as Brican was concerned and it changes it from
the client may request that Brican repurchase to Brican will
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 47 of 95
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
48
repurchase.
So I'm going to give this to Mr. Nemecek in a second
and let him look at this. But he and I worked on the
schedules.
THE COURT: It sounds to me like that person is not
really in the Version No. 6, he has moved -- he or she has
moved into one of the other categories.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: But I think that Mr. Nemecek and I
can get that done promptly. We can go through the final
schedules again, making sure that we've got everything
complete. I think Mr. Charlip will be able to do that as well.
We'll work on that right away.
THE COURT: God bless you and the horses that you're
riding in on.
So the plan is by -- I'm going to be out of the country
for the next two weeks, but we're working on it now. And my
trusty law clerk, Mr. Iqbal, God willing and the creek doesn't
rise, will be able to take my musings and put it down on paper
so we can get a decision -- an amended final judgment out and,
you know, amended findings of facts and conclusions of law.
If you will give us the schedules with -- and let's use
their proposed judgment. Is there any way that we can make it
easier to read? This is a hard decision -- I mean, proposed
judgment to read, I mean, Mr. Verde.
MR. VERDE: Oh.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 48 of 95
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
49
THE COURT: It's a lot of type, big blocks.
MR. VERDE: We could -- instead of describing it --
describing the Plaintiffs, we'll just rely on the -- most of
that verbiage is about who we're talking about. But I suppose
we could just -- if we have the name on a schedule, we could
just rely on it that way.
THE COURT: Well, I'll sort of tweak this one.
MR. VERDE: Okay.
THE COURT: I saw the Plaintiffs' proposed -- I'm
looking at the Plaintiffs' 576-1, Page 3. I may use that
structure so that there's more white space and it's easier to
read.
I mean, it's much easier, Mr. Gossett, the way you
have -- you and Mr. Charlip have organized it because it
basically covers what you all are talking about as well,
doesn't it?
MR. VERDE: I think the only difference is they --
their punch line, if you will, the last line, is that the
claims are dismissed.
We would like a -- we suggest a more assertive
declaration that you've found that there's no basis to declare
that the financing agreements are unenforceable.
So, in other words, if it's a declaration, just saying
that it was dismissed is -- you know, the purpose of a
declaration is the -- to get a declaration of the parties'
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 49 of 95
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
50
right.
And to help the Iowa court, I think it would be
important to let them know it's not just that you dismissed
their claims, but after four years of litigation, you found no
reason to declare the financing agreements unenforceable.
THE COURT: Well, that is true. At least none have
been raised here in this case. And now is the time to raise
them. I'll tweak it.
MR. CHARLIP: Judge, one point.
The financing agreements to -- take, for example, a
particular client did not sign it personally. Those are the
defenses that would be brought up in Iowa.
So I think the statement that there are no defenses to
the find financing agreement in a broad-brush fashion like that
goes beyond the ruling that you made and, in fact, would
potentially chill the rights of any client who has a specific
defense that would not be pertinent to the claims that were
brought in this case.
THE COURT: Well, I need to have a specific
declaration, I mean, that was -- are you saying, though,
that -- let me back up.
The Plaintiffs asked for a declaration that the lease
was not enforceable. And it was not enforceable on the one
ground that -- for the ones that were -- that summary judgment
has been entered.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 50 of 95
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
51
MR. CHARLIP: Correct.
THE COURT: That the two agreements were one and that
they were irreconcilable and, so, you had to interpret on --
based on the face, the cancellation clause was a specific
clause that was inconsistent and, therefore, it would trump.
And the Court found that that theory did not -- that
was the theory that was asserted and that was not --
MR. CHARLIP: Correct.
THE COURT: I'll go back and look at it. But I will
come up with some -- the language as to what I declared.
MR. VERDE: Your Honor, I just had a chilling glimpse
of my future. Because now having had an opportunity to put all
of their arguments as to why these things should be declared
unenforceable, we're not going to get a new series of claims in
Iowa?
THE COURT: I can't do that to the judge in Iowa --
MR. VERDE: No.
THE COURT: -- or to both sides.
MR. VERDE: I think they've had an opportunity to put
any defenses they had contained in here, if it's not
presented -- it's not preserved for Iowa.
MR. CHARLIP: That's not true.
THE COURT: If they had an individualized defense, I
presume they've asserted it in Iowa.
MR. CHARLIP: Correct. Correct.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 51 of 95
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
52
THE COURT: And so whatever defense that you have
asserted in Iowa that we did not cover here, that would still
remain.
MR. VERDE: Yes. That's correct.
THE COURT: And I think that's what he's saying.
MR. CHARLIP: Yes. Exactly.
MR. VERDE: Okay.
THE COURT: So why don't you two -- now that we have
that understanding, why don't the two of you come up with
proposed language so that I can use as to what I am declaring.
Because there needs to be more than simply a dismissal so that
it is clear as to what the -- declaration is being made.
So we need to modify your language that it is -- may
fully enforce. We can't put that language in because there may
be an individual defense there, but --
MR. VERDE: So we're clear, the concept is other than
what's already been pled in Iowa?
THE COURT: Correct.
MR. VERDE: Okay. Maybe we can use that as a basis
to --
THE COURT: But if it's pled on the defense -- or the
theory that they have articulated here --
MR. VERDE: Right.
THE COURT: -- then, that one is out. So this judgment
needs to operate as a --
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 52 of 95
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
53
MR. VERDE: Yes. It's going to be a tricky concept.
But we understand.
THE COURT: And at least if I can have your input --
it's sort of like drafting by committee, but a thoughtful
committee, that we're not doing it just on the fly here in the
courtroom.
Give me the timetable that you all need. I have to
tell you that I was trying to close this down by the end of the
month so I can make full disclosure.
And you all can test me if my biases are coming out.
Because I have to report, because this is a four-year-old case,
and the AO is not going to be happy with me. And I wanted to
close it down because the MDL conference is in October. And I
wanted to report to the panel that we were closed.
So whatever we can do, I would be most appreciative.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Aren't you able to close the MDL?
I mean, I believe that that is something that we had discussed
that you were going to do in the past.
THE COURT: And then, when talking to the MDL folks, I
began to realize that, if the order was going to preserve the
impact to all of the Plaintiffs, maybe I should just keep it
until I can get the final findings of facts and conclusions of
law out.
So I plan on figuring out a way to close it down by --
at least with the MDL panel, by the end of this month. I've
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 53 of 95
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
54
already told them that -- when they asked me if there were any
more tag-along cases, I told them no, that there would be no
more tag-along cases. I think you all got that.
Did you all get the notice of that?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
MR. VERDE: Your Honor, would it be helpful to talk now
about some sort of -- because all of this can go on and
mediation on a parallel track. They're not interdependent.
THE COURT: Do you want it to go back to the judge?
MR. VERDE: He's no longer with us, your Honor.
THE COURT: Oh, he died?
MR. VERDE: Yes. He did. A couple of years ago. Yes.
THE COURT: Oh.
MR. VERDE: I think --
THE COURT: How old was he?
MR. VERDE: He'd been ill for some time.
THE COURT: I didn't remember him as being elderly.
MR. VERDE: He was in his 80s. He had been ill. He
had been -- I think it's fair to say he was not in great health
when he was mediating our case as well.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any proposals as to
people that you would like to use as a mediator, that you all
would have confidence in as a mediator in the sense that I can
bring the mediator up to speed quickly and who is very
insightful, a good listener and has practical problem-solving
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 54 of 95
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
55
skills?
MR. VERDE: There's two issues here. One is who will
do it, which is very important. I agree.
The second, though, is that, if we're going to go in
and go through this and -- only to be told that, you know,
there's 1100 individuals, there's no possible way to settle
this case, that's fine. I guess we can't do that.
But is there -- what I'm asking is: In this forum, is
there some way we can get past that? Because if we can't,
then, we --
THE COURT: You need to have the Plaintiffs in the room
for the mediation.
MR. VERDE: Or --
THE COURT: So let me ask you this: Is there a way to
organize the groups of Plaintiffs into a manageable group and
then do -- you really need to do a global one.
Do you have any suggestions, Mr. Gossett, how we --
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I'm thinking, your Honor.
THE COURT: Ordinarily, I require that the Plaintiffs
individually attend mediation so that they have some skin in
the game, A, and B, that they really have an opportunity to
speak and to listen and to make a decision on the spot.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: 1010 in 41 states. I just don't
know how to organize them in any manageable fashion where I'm
not embarrassed going into it by somebody holding out and
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 55 of 95
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
56
saying, you know, "We've reached this resolution, but I've got
25 people in 15 states that say 'no,' they're not going to go
along with it."
You know, as we approached it before, it was easier
because it was before -- it was when it was a putative class
action and we were able to get authority to the class reps to
go there.
THE COURT: Well, how about if we simply look at the
only remaining class for -- I mean, the only remaining group
for settlement of the 640? So we've halved it.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: But that leaves the others that --
THE COURT: Tough bananas.
I mean, maybe you want to communicate with your --
that's a lot of e-mails coming in.
How are you communicating with them?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: We have several different
processes in place. The first and foremost, my communication
with them directly is done through a closed Google group,
closed in the sense that you have to have a specific invitation
to be able to access the group. And everybody that signs a
retainer with us has that access.
THE COURT: Does Mr. Charlip have a similar setup with
his clients?
MR. CHARLIP: No, Judge.
THE COURT: You have 69 clients. Right? Is that it?
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 56 of 95
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
57
61?
MR. CHARLIP: Something like that.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. Ronald GOSSETT: And we have a volunteer
administrator of the Google group. She probably is ruing the
day that she agreed to be administrator. But it's a dental
assistant in Jacksonville.
The doctors who then receive communication from me,
when they have a question about it, they'll send an e-mail of
that question.
My -- our paralegal is able to answer most of those
questions. So she'll respond by e-mail to the specific doctor
to answer that question.
If it's a question that we're getting from multiple
doctors, we'll send it to the group in its entirety.
There are quite a bit of efforts to stop them from
picking up the phone and calling because that's very
time-consuming and very costly, and we have curtailed that
significantly. But we still have some who will pick up the
phone and call.
Even with the communication with the Google group we
have many doctors who will say, "Oh, but I don't do e-mail" or,
"I haven't been on the group. I just need to know what's going
on."
So we have as much of herding cats as we can to keep
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 57 of 95
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
58
them communicating by e-mail and to avoid getting on the phone.
THE COURT: Your clients are providing the poster
child for the stereotype that all doctors are not great
businesspeople and are very emotional and cannot focus in on
the laser issue.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes.
THE COURT: You don't have to say anything.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: When you said earlier -- as you
were thinking about how to handle the issues of reliance and
materiality, you mentioned doing things on a rolling basis of
75 per week. That would be 15 per day.
My immediate thought was, "Oh, my goodness." When I
get on the phone --
THE COURT: Then you can have shared feelings with
Mr. Verde and his team.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes.
When I get on the phone with any one of the clients, it
is seen by them as an opportunity to get all their questions
answered and spend as much time with me as they think
necessary.
THE COURT: All for the $1,000 that they've paid you.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes. Well, that was their initial
payment. They've each paid more than that.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: And my brother has been very adept
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 58 of 95
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
59
at getting on the phone with them to allow me to keep working
on the things that we need to get to. So he is speaking to
them as they bypass our request that they not call.
When we do individualized --
THE COURT: You owe your brother big time.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes, ma'am. He reminds me of
that.
When we get to the point of doing an individualized
affidavit -- and I understand that and the reason for that and
the importance of that -- I envision that doctor spending
probably 45 minutes on the phone with us, each one of them.
And then we'll have to get in writing what to do and
I've got to communicate to them and send it up there and the
number of people that don't follow directions seems to be
increasing in this group.
THE COURT: Can you put a price tag on that for each
one of your clients as to what it will cost them to proceed
forward?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: I mean, because that's -- because the same
way as the Defendant is looking at its budget going forward and
it's in a position that it can -- just has to deal with itself,
your individual Plaintiffs need to understand that they want a
Bentley service, but they're only paying for a skateboard.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I think we could break it out to
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 59 of 95
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
60
them that they're paying me 50 cents an hour.
THE COURT: You know, the way the doctors feel about
lawyers, they may not care. Put it that way.
But if it is -- I would add that in, that, "Even at
this, it's 50 cents an hour. But here is what it's going to
cost you personally" and then say that I am encouraging the
parties to begin serious settlement discussions, that the Court
has spent four years, has expressed -- outlined the facts here
and what the law is to the best of its ability.
I'm going to send the case up on appeal, which will
mean that it's further delayed. And if they lose, more
interest is accruing. And they should, you know, figure out a
way to figure out what that sum is.
And then, if we -- the 640 prevail, we then have this
cost to go forward and it has to be a mini-trial. And we'll
try and figure out how to do it. But we're dealing with the
640.
MR. VERDE: Your Honor, would it be all right if I just
consulted with my client just for one minute?
THE COURT: Okay.
(Off the record discussion had between Mr. Verde and
his client.)
MR. VERDE: I just want to make -- I'm sorry.
I just wanted to make sure I was not going to suggest
something that was inappropriate first.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 60 of 95
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
61
THE COURT: Clients do appreciate that.
MR. VERDE: Yes. They do. It's still their case.
The only way I can think of this is -- you know, the
saying, if you eat an elephant starting with one mouthful -- is
maybe we get a group of 25, 30, 50 -- pick a number -- that
is -- that in one geographic location, the parties -- you know,
we would prefer that we pick them so we're not -- at random or
some other way.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. VERDE: And actually have them show up at the
mediation, actually have them participate, and see if we get a
critical mass of people settling in that, whether -- this
becomes effectively a bellwether mediation -- whether this sets
the price, sets the market, if you will, for what the
settlements are worth, with the hope that other people will
say, "Well, if these folks are okay with this, maybe we're okay
with this as well."
Look, it's not -- certainly no guarantees. But at
least there's a chance that, if there's a good mediator and
it's a good session, that that number sort of becomes the
number.
And Mr. Gossett is correct. We certainly don't expect
either him or Mr. Charlip to guarantee that they're going to
get 1,010 people to agree on anything.
But, on the other hand, if we can reduce the numbers
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 61 of 95
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
62
dramatically, you know, if we go up on appeal and if we come
back and we are proceeding with these mini-trials, everyone out
is to the good.
And if we have, you know, 10 percent or -- you know, of
holdouts and, you know, people want to fight to the bitter end,
okay. But the logistics of that are far easier than doing it
for 1,000 people.
And, honestly, you know --
THE COURT: I like that idea.
Mr. Gossett?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: That's fine with me, Judge.
THE COURT: So let's do the following: You pick --
MR. VERDE: What's a good number?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Remember when you're picking a
number that these are professionals who have booked dental
procedures or optometric procedures in the future.
So we're going to have to give them time to make sure
that whatever number he picks, that all of the number will be
able to be there that day.
THE COURT: But I can also order that they show up for
mediation and, if they chose not to show up for mediation, then
they will be dismissed from the case. Right?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes, ma'am.
If we're going into an area where he chooses 25 and we
have remote people, will they be able to participate in
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 62 of 95
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
63
mediation by Skyping?
THE COURT: I think that that's hard to do.
MR. VERDE: I agree.
Our plan was to pick a geographic -- maybe Florida,
with there's a concentration, and just get people from that
area.
THE COURT: How about if we had 20 people? Is that too
small a group? I think that, if I make it 50, it's going to be
difficult to get a critical mass and it's not going to be
effective dynamics.
MR. VERDE: Right.
THE COURT: I would almost say that maybe you want it
to be, you know, 18. That's what I would propose.
MR. VERDE: We originally were thinking 25. But I
think somewhere in that range. And it's not -- again, not a
science. It's just what seems to --
THE COURT: See how many people you can get between
15 and 25. You pick the geographic area.
The difficulty -- do we have 25 in a particular
geographic area in Miami so that it's easy -- in the state of
Florida, I mean?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I have it broken down by state.
In the state of Florida, I have 173 clients. Mr. Charlip has
quite a number in Florida.
THE COURT: And where are they all located?
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 63 of 95
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
64
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: All over the state, from
Jacksonville to Pensacola all the way down here.
THE COURT: Is there any particular location that is
particularly dense?
MR. VERDE: I think California and -- and New York
City, within the metropolitan area, I think there's quite a
number.
THE COURT: Then, let's do New York.
MR. VERDE: And I think you would know about it, Ron,
but I think also Los Angeles.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Los Angeles and the city -- in the
outlying boroughs, you would have at least 18, I think, in the
city and the outlying boroughs.
MR. VERDE: And there's Long Island.
THE COURT: Long Island -- it's sometimes difficult to
get from Long Island to Downtown New York City.
MR. VERDE: No. Not really.
But if we're talking about a one-day mediation -- Ron,
am I right that New York would have in the metropolitan area
some critical mass?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I think so, Mike. I know that
I've got a lot in New York. I've got 57 people in New York.
THE COURT: How many does Mr. Charlip have?
MR. CHARLIP: Judge, I don't know at this time.
THE COURT: Are all of yours in Florida?
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 64 of 95
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
65
MR. CHARLIP: No, Judge.
THE COURT: Oh. You just don't know how many you have
in New York?
MR. CHARLIP: Correct. My computer is shut down. I
had that. I don't have access to it at the moment.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: And the number that I have, 57, is
all of my clients in New York. I haven't separated this out to
be only the 650.
But I would say that it's probably -- certainly we have
more than 20 in the surviving group in New York. I don't know
what number around the city, but it's something I can find out
and work on by tomorrow.
MR. VERDE: We also have a big concentration in San
Antonio, Texas.
THE COURT: Let's take a ten-minute recess so that we
can come up with our game plan and the deadlines of what we're
going to do by when.
But what I would like to do is enter an order requiring
mediation along the lines of what you have identified, which
would be in a particular location for a bellwether mediation,
and that I would require attendance of the individual
Plaintiffs that are designated and, if they do not show up,
they will be dismissed.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Will we have an avenue to present
to the Court a reason why they would not be there so that
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 65 of 95
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
66
they're not dismissed just because the Defendant picked them?
THE COURT: That they need to make this a priority.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: And unless they're at a funeral of their
spouse, their parents, they are at the wedding of their child
or grandchildren --
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Perhaps scheduled medical
procedures.
THE COURT: Or -- no. If they are undergoing a heart
transplant or something like that --
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: That's what I mean.
THE COURT: -- and it cannot be rescheduled -- I mean,
a colonoscopy does not count, although some people would think
the choice between a colonoscopy and going to mediation -- and
immovable personal -- for which they would need a doctor's note
because at this point it's very important that the Plaintiffs
show up.
Now, the question is: Who are you going to select as a
mediator? And how soon can you identify that person? And how
soon can you find out when and where that person is available
to mediate?
I'm beginning to hear, though, that this is not going
to happen before the end of October.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I think that's safe.
THE COURT: Or mid-October is more likely by the time
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 66 of 95
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
67
you give everybody -- you're going to have to select the
mediator. There may be some trial and error until you find
somebody who is available.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Is the goal for the mediator to be
constant? That mediator will be the mediator if we're
successful here and, if we go on to another area, we want to
have that mediator persistent or do we want to have a mediator
from the geographic area that we're going to be mediating?
THE COURT: What are the pros and cons for both those
suggestions?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Number one, cost. If we have a
mediator that's going to be expected to attend every mediation
wherever we go, he or she has to travel and house them,
et cetera.
Also, knowing the personalities of the people. You
know, a mediator in Texas would know how to speak to Texans to
move them off the dime, where a mediator from New York speaking
to a Texan may not be able to do that.
THE COURT: So you're suggesting a -- selecting
different mediators, depending upon the jurisdiction that the
mediation occurs?
I think that what Mr. Verde was suggesting is
getting -- are you just going to do one mediation or were you
going to suggest doing three bellwethers?
MR. VERDE: We were just going to do the one and see
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 67 of 95
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
68
how it goes. And then, if we make progress, let's do the other
areas of concentration and then try and knock off more and more
people.
I take Ron's point. It's a big country and local
customs do matter. But I think let's pick one location. Let's
get the people there. Let's get a local mediator there.
And depending on what the results are -- if we make
fantastic progress and we can try to do this on a much broader
basis, great.
If we think we still need to take smaller steps and do
more localized -- further bellwether mediations, we will do
that as well. But my sense is we would probably want to get a
local person to do that.
It would mean -- it's a six of one, half dozen of the
of the other. You're going to have to pay the same mediator to
travel. But on the other hand, you have to pay a new mediator
get up to speed. So there's no really good answer there.
THE COURT: How soon could you all come up with the
name of a mediator that I could appoint? Or shall we -- let's
take our ten-minute break so my court reporter, who's been
going for almost two hours, can take a break.
I don't want to leave here without a schedule of
exactly what we're going to do and when we're going to do it
by.
The things we need to do are the -- when -- you're
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 68 of 95
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
69
going to get me the modified judgments that I can enter, when
you want to have -- when you're going to get me the suggestion
for what I need to put together for -- and it should only be
one page or two pages, max, for the Eleventh Circuit to certify
the question -- the selection of the mediator and the timing of
setting the mediation.
I'm going to leave the setting of the mediation, but
I'd like to put an outside date by which it needs to be done.
And then we have the issue as to going forward with anything
else as far as the amendment of the pleadings.
I think that we are in agreement that we will stay the
procedures on the reliance issues until after we see whether or
not the Eleventh Circuit will take the appeal and whether or
not the mediation is effective.
I think that that is the more cost-effective way.
And then I think I can close down the MDL at the end of
this month unless there is any --
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Would you continue -- well, it's
not really stayed, but you would excuse them from trial.
With respect to our claims against Brican, we'd stay
those as well?
THE COURT: I forgot about that.
What are we going to do with Brican?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Well, I am preparing a motion for
summary judgment. And, of course, as we're preparing motions
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 69 of 95
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
70
like that, we always think very optimistically that they're the
greatest things ever written and they certainly would be
granted.
I recognize that may not happen. But I suspect that I
would have a motion for summary judgment completed a month from
now. And then, at that point, if the motion for summary
judgment is ultimately denied, we need a schedule to get us to
trial.
THE COURT: Lucky me. Lucky you.
If you will just come up with some dates. And I'll see
you back here at 12:15.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thanks.
(Thereupon a recess was taken, after which the
following proceedings were had:)
THE COURT: I just wanted to find out what your all's
proposed schedule is for the various things, and we will
depart.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes, ma'am.
We have for the modified judgment by September 19th. I
just do not have any availability next week, Judge.
THE COURT: That's okay. I won't be here. I'll be
back on the 18th.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Okay. The suggestion for
certification to the Eleventh on September 19th as well.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 70 of 95
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
71
THE COURT: I probably -- oh. The suggestions that
you're going to give me?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes, ma'am.
The selection of mediator we're already working on. We
should have that completed by September 30th. The reason we
need that additional time is because finding a very good
mediator -- it's unusual that they have time available for us
right away. So if we have to bypass our first choice and go to
the second one, it may take us until September 30th to have
that done.
THE COURT: That sounds reasonable to me.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: And then the outside date for
mediation, we have November 15th. And we are -- as soon as we
have the mediator selected and have the commitment from him to
be available, we're going to be working on getting that
mediation set and everybody there.
But since you asked for an outside date, we wanted to
have, you know, a couple extra weeks in case we have problems
with scheduling the mediator.
THE COURT: Again, that sounds rational.
MR. VERDE: We've selected California. Probably it'll
be Los Angeles, San Diego. They're close enough. I don't
think it's unreasonable to get people from Los Angeles to San
Diego or vice versa or, as a possibly, San Francisco, because
there seem to be two significant clusters. But it'll be one of
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 71 of 95
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
72
the California locations.
THE COURT: Or LA.
MR. VERDE: It'll be LA or -- LA/San Diego or possibly
San Francisco, but much more likely either LA/San Diego.
THE COURT: So it'll be between San Diego and LA?
MR. VERDE: We could absolutely set it up at the midway
point.
THE COURT: Again, you'll figure it out, depending on
how many people you have from San Diego and how many people
from LA?
MR. VERDE: Right.
THE COURT: Okay. That sounds like -- you all were
very efficient in 15 minutes. You have great incentive to get
rid of this case.
Yes.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Do you want to hear the proposed
dates I have for Brican, even though we don't have Brican's
attorney here?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: The filing of the motion for
summary judgment, by December 15th, so I can focus on the
mediation and talking to all the doctors that I need to talk
to.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: A response by January 15th,
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 72 of 95
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
73
giving, you know, credence to the fact that the last two weeks
of December are not going to be workable anyway.
Then a reply by January 30th --
THE COURT: What do they have to say at that point?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: I don't know. I don't know what
they're going to say. I don't know what they think they can
say. But they'll certainly have an opportunity.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: And I have a suggestion of a trial
date in March of 2015. That's in the Brican matter only, of
course.
THE COURT: Okay. How long do you think that trial
will take?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Two days. But I don't know what
they're going to try to raise.
THE COURT: We'll find out.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: Mr. Verde, Mr. Nemecek and Ms. Rodriguez
will be saying, "We don't have to be there."
MR. ROBERT GOSSETT: They'll miss the music.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: That's all the dates I had down,
Judge.
THE COURT: And --
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: The amendment to the counterclaim?
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 73 of 95
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
74
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: We didn't have it on our last
list. That's up to Mike.
MR. VERDE: Your Honor, if we're -- I took your last
comment that we were staying procedural issues until down the
road, that everything -- because you're going to terminate the
MDL action, but keep the district court action. So --
THE COURT: Although I must admit I looked at how --
whether or not I had jurisdiction for the counterclaim. That
set me back to looking at the face of it. I went, "Huh. Do we
really have a viable cause of action here?"
MR. VERDE: We're happy to do it if it would make more
sense, though, if everything is going to be stayed pending the
interlocutory appeal, maybe -- and the mediations, we'll do it.
THE COURT: One of the things that I need for us to --
what do I tell Judge --
MR. COLE: Hubbard. He's no longer assigned this case
directly.
MR. VERDE: It used be Hubbard, but it's not now.
THE COURT: He hasn't told me that yet.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: He hasn't come back to earth yet.
He's been celebrating ever since.
THE COURT: When did he move from that division?
MR. COLE: I believe they moved him to a criminal court
now. I don't believe there's anyone directly assigned to this,
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 74 of 95
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
75
but I'm not sure on that.
THE COURT: Because I sent him a copy of the --
MR. COLE: I'm sure he would share it with the chief
judge.
THE COURT: And he said, "Keep me advised." In sending
him a copy of the findings of facts, I told him he didn't have
to read it unless he really had an insomnia problem and it
would cure it real quick.
So what are -- what, if anything, so that I can at
least share that so that his chief judge will know what impact
it will have?
MR. VERDE: My suggestion is, since it doesn't impact
your ability to shut down the MDL and the district court case
is going to have to continue anyway, why don't we -- I thought
you had said we were going to stay other procedural issues,
which I took to include the counterclaim issues.
Effectively, we could kick the can down the road a bit
and see where we are and see if -- our thinking on this may
change if, against all odds, Brican or some of the other
individuals do show up to defend themselves.
THE COURT: So you mean if suddenly they file a
response to the motion for summary judgment?
MR. VERDE: Yes.
THE COURT: And how will that change everything?
Because then you will want to be back here.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 75 of 95
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
76
MR. VERDE: Well, "want" is probably not the right
word. But there's a trustee involved. And there's a trustee
for Brican, who like all bankruptcy trustees, have powers. And
I would want to make sure we're not being dragged back in
through that angle.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: My understanding --
THE COURT: That Brican may --
MR. VERDE: Right.
THE COURT: What theory would Brican have against you
guys?
MR. VERDE: I don't know. But it's a bankruptcy
trustee, and they're very creative.
Mr. Gossett -- and he's absolutely correct. We have a
release. But whether the release encompasses some other new
claims that we haven't even thought of -- well, all I'm saying
is, if the Court thinks it'll move the ball along, we'll file
these pleadings.
But I think it's better off if we're concentrating on
the interlocutory appeal and the mediation. And I don't think
it delays the case any by moving this back. If at some point
you want to set a date to see where we are --
THE COURT: The only concern I have at this point is
what are the counterclaims and the third-party claims' impact
on this case and on the Iowa case? Because I need to report to
the Iowa judge. Because what we're doing here, hopefully,
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 76 of 95
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
77
makes his or her life easier.
MR. VERDE: Right.
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: One other consideration on the
counterclaim is if NCMIC chooses several doctors to participate
in the mediation that are counterclaim Defendants and there's
no counterclaim against them that articulates what they're
exposed to, it's hard to have them weigh their exposure.
THE COURT: That's a good point.
MR. VERDE: I think there's a lot of good reasons to
just leave that be for now. And we'll -- I mean, if we are in
a position where we have to come back to it -- I don't think it
affects anything in Iowa because that's going to be --
Mr. Gossett has indicated he's going up on appeal on the one --
I'm sorry -- on the three-column leases and we're going to have
an interlocutory appeal on the one-column leases. So Iowa is
not going to be in a position to do anything in the short term
anyway.
THE COURT: What impact does the amendment of the
counterclaim have on the mediation process that we're going
through? Are any of the Plaintiffs in California in the 274?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yeah. I'm sure there are.
MR. VERDE: Statistically, it's almost a certainty.
Yes.
THE COURT: So is the plan to keep them out of the pool
that you're going to choose or is the plan to keep them in?
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 77 of 95
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
78
MR. VERDE: The plan -- when we get to the actual names
of who we're going to choose, we'll try and choose a broad
cross-section. I don't think -- we will try and get some
people who are subject to the cross- and counterclaims in
there.
THE COURT: Then, I think that you will need -- if you
really want to have a club, you need to have the counterclaims
spelled out or else indicate that you're not proceeding with a
counterclaim.
MR. VERDE: Okay. We can do that. I don't know -- the
fact that there's a counterclaim against them, the particular
legal theories or the pointy-head lawyering language that goes
into stating that claim, I'm not sure how much difference that
will make to them, but we're certainly happy to do that.
THE COURT: Well, one of the things that the
mediator -- the tools for the mediator is -- here is
exposure --
MR. VERDE: Right.
THE COURT: -- so that they can factor in what's it
worth to have peace.
MR. VERDE: So would it make sense, then, if we restate
the claim, but then hold on the motion -- Mr. Gossett's motion
to dismiss until further down the line?
THE COURT: He's not filing a motion to dismiss.
MR. VERDE: Oh. Okay.
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 78 of 95
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
79
THE COURT: Because you're going to rewrite the
counterclaim so that it deals with his issues to dismiss.
MR. VERDE: Right. Okay.
THE COURT: Do you think you could do that?
MR. VERDE: Certainly. We will --
THE COURT: Because I am not encouraging -- in fact,
I'm actively discouraging -- any motion to dismiss.
MR. VERDE: Okay.
THE COURT: That's why I asked him to set out all of
the grounds that he was going to argue or set out in his motion
to dismiss so that you could see what his avenues of attack are
going to be and see if you could plead your way around that.
MR. VERDE: Okay. Then, it's fair to ask us at this --
after all that's happened to restate this.
Can we -- the only thing I'd ask is: Would it be
possible for us to file this after we see the amended findings
of fact and concluded of law?
THE COURT: Certainly. So why don't we do that
September the 30th as well or I could do it mid-October as
well.
MR. VERDE: Well, it depends on when --
THE COURT: You're going to select the mediator on the
30th.
MR. VERDE: Right.
THE COURT: So you're going to start setting up -- it
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 79 of 95
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
80
just needs to be done before you have -- start the mediation.
MR. VERDE: Right. I was asking if we could see your
amended opinion before.
THE COURT: Oh, yes.
MR. VERDE: So if we put a hold date of, say,
October 15th, I think that gives us time to absorb your opinion
and should be well before an actual mediation date.
THE COURT: Okay. And then all of the reliance issues
are on hold.
MR. VERDE: I think that's right.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you all very much. I think we
have a plan.
MR. VERDE: Thank you.
THE COURT: And the modified judgments will be to me by
September the 19th. Okay?
MR. RONALD GOSSETT: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: That will give us an incentive to have the
revision to the findings of fact and conclusions of law out the
week before September the 30th.
Thank you. We're in recess.
(Proceedings concluded.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 80 of 95
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
81
I hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate
transcription of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
____________ /s/Lisa Edwards_____DATE LISA EDWARDS, RDR, CRR
Official United States Court Reporter400 North Miami Avenue, Twelfth FloorMiami, Florida 33128(305) 523-5499
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 81 of 95
$
$1,000 [3] - 5:4,
28:25, 58:21
$14 [1] - 8:20
$15,000 [1] - 28:25
$23,000 [2] - 21:24,
22:19
$25,000 [1] - 28:23
$400 [3] - 20:18,
21:12, 21:21
'
'no [1] - 56:2
/
/s/Lisa [1] - 81:6
1
1 [2] - 1:7, 11:18
1,000 [1] - 62:7
1,010 [3] - 31:9,
31:17, 61:24
10 [1] - 62:4
10-2183MD-Seitz [1]
- 3:1
10-MD-02183-SEITZ
[1] - 1:2
100 [5] - 28:18,
28:22, 29:5, 29:12,
34:7
10022 [1] - 1:22
1010 [1] - 55:23
106 [1] - 28:5
10:00 [1] - 1:6
110 [1] - 28:5
1100 [1] - 55:6
1200 [1] - 14:10
12:15 [1] - 70:11
12:30 [1] - 1:6
15 [6] - 10:22, 28:25,
56:2, 58:11, 63:18,
72:13
15th [4] - 71:13,
72:21, 72:25, 80:6
1688 [1] - 1:24
17 [1] - 10:22
173 [1] - 63:23
17501 [1] - 1:18
18 [2] - 63:13, 64:12
18th [1] - 70:23
19 [1] - 14:3
1966 [1] - 43:5
1986 [2] - 33:17,
33:21
19th [3] - 70:20,
70:25, 80:15
2
2 [1] - 10:21
20 [2] - 63:7, 65:10
2008 [2] - 19:22,
19:23
2011 [1] - 26:8
2013 [1] - 42:5
2014 [2] - 1:5, 42:7
2015 [1] - 73:10
21 [2] - 10:19, 10:21
22 [3] - 10:21, 42:5,
42:7
23,000 [2] - 23:13,
23:14
247 [1] - 19:4
25 [6] - 56:2, 61:5,
62:24, 63:14, 63:18,
63:19
25,000 [1] - 16:20
274 [4] - 7:9, 17:21,
24:24, 77:20
29 [1] - 10:21
3
3 [2] - 10:22, 49:10
30 [3] - 10:22, 61:5
305 [2] - 2:4, 81:8
30th [6] - 71:5, 71:9,
73:3, 79:19, 79:23,
80:19
33021 [1] - 1:15
33128 [2] - 2:3, 81:8
33139 [1] - 1:25
33160 [1] - 1:19
39 [1] - 31:19
4
4 [3] - 1:5, 11:18,
13:12
400 [2] - 2:2, 81:7
41 [1] - 55:23
42(B [2] - 34:13,
38:13
45 [1] - 59:11
4700 [1] - 1:15
5
5 [6] - 10:19, 11:22,
12:4, 12:9, 14:1
50 [5] - 14:2, 60:1,
60:5, 61:5, 63:8
501 [1] - 1:18
523-5499 [2] - 2:4,
81:8
538 [1] - 33:13
57 [2] - 64:22, 65:6
57.105 [1] - 4:22
575 [1] - 1:22
576-1 [1] - 49:10
577 [2] - 46:6, 46:7
577-1 [1] - 46:4
6
6 [3] - 11:18, 47:20,
48:6
60 [1] - 14:2
61 [1] - 57:1
640 [3] - 56:10,
60:14, 60:17
650 [2] - 7:10, 65:8
679.4031(2) [1] -
42:11
69 [1] - 56:25
7
70 [1] - 10:19
75 [2] - 27:10, 58:11
8
8 [3] - 10:21, 13:15,
13:23
80s [1] - 54:18
9
900 [1] - 1:24
A
a.m [1] - 1:6
ability [6] - 31:8,
37:15, 42:18, 42:20,
60:9, 75:13
able [11] - 4:10, 9:6,
48:11, 48:18, 53:16,
56:6, 56:20, 57:11,
62:19, 62:25, 67:18
above-entitled [1] -
81:3
abrogated [1] - 43:6
absolutely [3] - 31:4,
72:6, 76:13
absorb [1] - 80:6
accept [3] - 30:16,
30:23, 44:25
accepted [1] - 29:18
access [3] - 56:20,
56:21, 65:5
accordingly [1] -
14:22
accruing [1] - 60:12
accurate [1] - 81:2
accused [1] - 23:25
acquire [1] - 19:21
Act [1] - 43:10
action [9] - 6:19,
9:25, 31:12, 31:14,
46:14, 56:6, 74:7,
74:11
active [8] - 18:9,
18:12, 18:23, 18:25,
19:2, 19:9, 19:14,
20:14
actively [1] - 79:7
actual [8] - 16:16,
16:18, 23:7, 37:9,
40:16, 46:11, 78:1,
80:7
add [2] - 23:25, 60:4
additional [3] - 3:16,
20:12, 71:6
address [2] - 24:6,
27:2
adept [1] - 58:25
administrator [2] -
57:5, 57:6
admit [2] - 25:24,
74:8
adopted [1] - 43:5
adoption [1] - 43:3
advance [1] - 31:25
advantage [1] -
45:25
advertise [1] - 21:11
advice [3] - 31:11,
31:20, 31:22
advise [1] - 31:10
advised [1] - 75:5
advisor [1] - 23:6
advocate [1] - 25:21
affect [1] - 18:6
affects [1] - 77:12
affidavit [1] - 59:9
affidavits [2] - 27:6,
27:12
affiliates [2] - 25:10,
25:13
agency [6] - 36:18,
36:21, 37:22, 38:1,
38:2
agent [2] - 26:16,
26:18
1
agents [3] - 25:7,
25:8, 26:11
aggrieved [1] - 41:18
ago [2] - 18:5, 54:12
agree [7] - 4:1, 30:9,
32:12, 47:17, 55:3,
61:24, 63:3
agreed [5] - 3:19,
14:6, 34:11, 39:4,
57:6
agreement [7] - 5:4,
23:5, 23:6, 32:3,
47:20, 50:14, 69:11
Agreement [1] - 14:1
agreements [7] -
4:20, 42:11, 47:22,
49:22, 50:5, 50:10,
51:2
al [2] - 1:14, 1:17
all's [2] - 47:2, 70:16
allegation [2] - 25:6,
26:19
allegations [1] - 6:11
allege [1] - 19:20
allow [1] - 59:1
allowed [1] - 34:11
almost [3] - 63:12,
68:21, 77:22
alternative [1] - 28:8
amenable [2] - 29:1,
29:4
amend [2] - 18:3,
26:22
amended [8] - 3:21,
4:10, 18:4, 24:7,
48:19, 48:20, 79:16,
80:3
amendment [4] -
26:16, 69:10, 73:25,
77:18
America [1] - 3:2
AMERICA [1] - 1:4
amount [5] - 5:18,
20:2, 22:16, 29:15,
41:17
amounts [1] - 47:6
analysis [2] - 3:21,
44:2
Angela [2] - 11:1,
13:10
Angeles [4] - 64:10,
64:11, 71:22, 71:23
angle [1] - 76:5
annexed [1] - 47:8
answer [8] - 5:24,
11:19, 11:20, 42:1,
42:4, 57:11, 57:13,
68:17
answered [1] - 58:19
answers [1] - 42:4
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 82 of 95
Antonio [1] - 65:14
anxiety [1] - 33:18
anyway [3] - 73:2,
75:14, 77:17
AO [1] - 53:12
apiece [2] - 20:18,
21:12
apparent [5] - 36:18,
36:20, 37:22, 38:1,
38:2
appeal [11] - 32:3,
35:5, 45:10, 45:11,
60:10, 62:1, 69:13,
74:14, 76:19, 77:13,
77:15
appealable [1] -
45:20
appearance [1] -
27:19
appearances [1] -
3:3
APPEARANCES [1] -
1:12
appeared [2] - 38:5,
39:9
appearing [1] - 30:12
applicability [1] -
45:12
applied [1] - 33:24
applies [3] - 3:19,
33:1, 45:22
apply [1] - 36:9
appoint [2] - 27:13,
68:19
appreciate [2] - 44:7,
61:1
appreciative [1] -
53:15
approached [1] -
56:4
approaches [1] -
26:6
approval [1] - 33:9
April [1] - 26:8
area [14] - 22:11,
22:13, 22:14, 22:17,
23:25, 36:14, 62:24,
63:6, 63:18, 63:20,
64:6, 64:19, 67:6,
67:8
areas [1] - 68:2
argue [1] - 79:10
argued [1] - 38:24
arguing [3] - 33:5,
39:14, 43:12
argument [3] - 3:17,
9:12, 42:24
arguments [1] -
51:13
arise [1] - 32:16
arm's [1] - 24:21
arm's-length [1] -
24:21
arms [1] - 35:2
arrange [1] - 27:17
articulate [1] - 45:21
articulated [2] - 4:2,
52:22
articulates [1] - 77:6
aspect [1] - 26:23
asserted [3] - 51:7,
51:24, 52:2
assertive [1] - 49:20
assessment [1] -
19:25
assigned [2] - 74:17,
74:25
assignee [1] - 37:15
assigns [1] - 25:9
assistant [1] - 57:7
assuming [1] - 7:25
attack [1] - 79:11
attempting [1] -
10:15
attend [2] - 55:20,
67:12
attendance [1] -
65:21
attorney [1] - 72:18
attorneys [1] - 25:12
attorneys' [5] - 4:15,
4:16, 4:18, 5:12, 6:4
authority [1] - 56:6
avail [1] - 30:11
availability [1] -
70:21
available [4] - 66:20,
67:3, 71:7, 71:15
Aventura [1] - 1:19
avenue [1] - 65:24
Avenue [4] - 1:22,
1:24, 2:2, 81:7
avenues [1] - 79:11
avoid [1] - 58:1
awareness [1] -
18:11
B
baby [1] - 43:16
ball [7] - 34:1, 34:3,
34:4, 34:5, 34:6, 34:8,
76:16
bananas [1] - 56:12
bankruptcy [5] -
33:9, 33:10, 33:13,
76:3, 76:11
Barbieri [2] - 10:18,
11:21
based [7] - 3:18, 9:2,
18:14, 22:19, 37:3,
45:11, 51:4
bases [1] - 33:13
basis [16] - 4:4, 4:5,
4:8, 4:15, 4:18, 6:10,
6:13, 15:17, 15:23,
20:5, 27:10, 34:23,
49:21, 52:19, 58:10,
68:9
basketball [1] - 34:4
Beach [1] - 1:25
bear [1] - 32:13
became [1] - 15:10
become [1] - 40:12
becomes [4] - 4:22,
45:20, 61:13, 61:20
bed [1] - 32:23
BEFORE [1] - 1:9
began [1] - 53:20
begin [3] - 27:5,
40:6, 60:7
beginning [5] - 5:6,
6:22, 25:21, 26:3,
66:22
behalf [2] - 3:4, 3:11
behind [1] - 16:25
bellwether [3] -
61:13, 65:20, 68:11
bellwethers [1] -
67:24
beneficial [1] - 44:12
benefit [1] - 44:1
benefits [2] - 6:5,
24:22
Bentley [1] - 59:24
best [2] - 32:4, 60:9
better [6] - 17:11,
17:19, 28:7, 30:10,
76:18
between [6] - 10:14,
24:14, 60:21, 63:17,
66:14, 72:5
beyond [4] - 19:10,
34:19, 36:16, 50:15
biases [1] - 53:10
big [4] - 49:1, 59:5,
65:13, 68:4
Biscayne [1] - 1:18
bit [6] - 5:21, 18:15,
22:1, 33:15, 57:16,
75:17
bitter [1] - 62:5
black [1] - 33:15
Blauzvern [5] - 3:5,
3:6, 10:20, 11:23,
11:24
BLAUZVERN [1] -
1:14
bless [1] - 48:13
blocking [1] - 29:23
blocks [2] - 37:15,
49:1
blunt [1] - 41:13
boilerplate [1] -
27:19
bones [1] - 29:25
booked [1] - 62:15
boroughs [2] -
64:12, 64:13
bothered [1] - 21:18
bottom [1] - 24:2
bought [2] - 19:17,
22:20
Boulevard [1] - 1:18
brain [1] - 45:24
brand [1] - 38:4
brand-new [1] - 38:4
bread [1] - 20:11
break [3] - 59:25,
68:20, 68:21
Brican [29] - 3:1, 8:8,
8:9, 8:10, 8:13, 8:17,
9:2, 10:15, 12:12,
12:16, 12:17, 13:1,
13:6, 22:11, 24:14,
25:7, 30:7, 30:9,
47:24, 47:25, 69:20,
69:23, 72:17, 73:10,
75:19, 76:3, 76:7,
76:9
BRICAN [1] - 1:4
Brican's [2] - 47:22,
72:17
bridge [1] - 18:6
brief [2] - 24:9, 45:18
briefing [2] - 9:12,
36:18
bring [9] - 8:24,
21:20, 23:21, 24:11,
27:21, 28:3, 31:23,
35:2, 54:24
broad [6] - 24:15,
24:25, 25:15, 25:18,
50:14, 78:2
broad-brush [1] -
50:14
broader [1] - 68:8
broken [1] - 63:22
brother [2] - 58:25,
59:5
brought [7] - 6:15,
25:16, 37:4, 40:24,
41:7, 50:12, 50:18
brush [1] - 50:14
budget [1] - 59:21
Building [1] - 1:15
bulb [1] - 38:19
bunch [1] - 28:4
burden [1] - 7:6
2
buried [1] - 39:4
business [4] - 21:7,
41:1, 41:6, 44:4
businesspeople [1] -
58:4
BY [1] - 2:1
bypass [2] - 59:3,
71:8
C
calculating [1] -
46:11
California [4] - 64:5,
71:21, 72:1, 77:20
cancellation [2] -
36:25, 51:4
cannot [5] - 8:5,
27:2, 35:1, 58:4,
66:12
care [2] - 45:16, 60:3
Caribbean [1] - 8:19
Carolina [3] - 22:6,
22:20, 23:1
carried [1] - 43:4
case [38] - 6:3, 6:16,
6:22, 14:6, 14:8,
14:21, 15:3, 17:25,
30:5, 31:6, 34:10,
34:13, 35:2, 37:20,
38:9, 38:13, 39:11,
41:24, 41:25, 43:3,
43:14, 44:9, 46:3,
50:7, 50:18, 53:11,
54:20, 55:7, 60:10,
61:2, 62:22, 71:18,
72:14, 74:17, 75:13,
76:20, 76:24
CASE [1] - 1:2
Case [1] - 3:1
cases [6] - 33:9,
33:13, 33:20, 36:5,
54:2, 54:3
Castillo [2] - 15:2,
17:22
Catanzarite [1] -
13:25
categories [2] -
47:14, 48:7
categorizations [1] -
47:17
category [1] - 17:22
Catherine [1] - 3:11
CATHERINE [1] -
1:23
cats [1] - 57:25
celebrating [1] -
74:22
cents [4] - 28:20,
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 83 of 95
29:12, 60:1, 60:5
certain [2] - 22:16,
32:3
certainly [9] - 5:9,
61:18, 61:22, 65:9,
70:2, 73:7, 78:14,
79:5, 79:18
certainty [1] - 77:22
certification [1] -
70:25
certify [5] - 44:11,
44:14, 44:16, 69:4,
81:2
cetera [2] - 33:22,
67:14
chance [1] - 61:19
change [6] - 26:5,
34:11, 41:15, 47:23,
75:19, 75:24
changed [6] - 6:23,
38:16, 39:20, 40:7,
42:14, 47:21
changes [2] - 33:22,
47:24
changing [1] - 38:15
charitably [1] - 32:20
Charlip [9] - 3:8,
25:3, 28:17, 48:11,
49:14, 56:22, 61:23,
63:23, 64:23
CHARLIP [17] - 1:17,
1:17, 3:8, 13:18,
13:22, 23:23, 50:9,
51:1, 51:8, 51:22,
51:25, 52:6, 56:24,
57:2, 64:24, 65:1,
65:4
Charlip's [1] - 12:6
Charlotte [1] - 22:7
chase [2] - 34:18,
39:17
chased [3] - 34:16,
37:24, 39:15
chasing [3] - 38:10,
39:12, 40:8
cheapest [1] - 31:24
check [3] - 13:22,
15:11, 19:17
chief [2] - 75:3,
75:10
child [2] - 58:3, 66:5
chill [1] - 50:16
chilling [1] - 51:11
choice [2] - 66:14,
71:8
choose [4] - 11:7,
77:25, 78:2
chooses [2] - 62:24,
77:4
chose [3] - 11:11,
40:4, 62:21
chosen [2] - 11:10,
11:12
Circuit [3] - 44:22,
69:4, 69:13
circumstances [1] -
27:7
cited [1] - 33:8
cites [1] - 25:18
City [2] - 64:6, 64:16
city [3] - 64:11,
64:13, 65:11
claim [18] - 4:16,
4:18, 6:11, 6:17, 7:19,
8:1, 8:10, 9:11, 9:14,
12:16, 15:16, 15:25,
16:5, 30:24, 30:25,
42:5, 78:13, 78:22
claims [8] - 6:15,
8:13, 49:19, 50:4,
50:17, 51:14, 69:20,
76:15
claims' [1] - 76:23
clarify [2] - 4:5, 31:2
class [8] - 4:17,
11:14, 14:13, 31:12,
31:14, 56:5, 56:6,
56:9
classic [1] - 17:6
clause [4] - 30:13,
42:6, 51:4, 51:5
clean [1] - 38:3
clear [6] - 32:1, 33:1,
34:7, 34:8, 52:12,
52:16
clerk [3] - 46:20,
48:17
client [11] - 12:7,
13:17, 13:25, 29:17,
31:22, 47:25, 50:11,
50:16, 60:19, 60:22
clients [14] - 5:4,
23:20, 30:18, 30:19,
31:19, 43:22, 56:23,
56:25, 58:2, 58:17,
59:17, 61:1, 63:23,
65:7
clinic [2] - 17:7,
21:11
Close [17] - 33:25,
34:22, 35:6, 35:12,
35:16, 35:22, 36:3,
37:4, 38:6, 38:7, 39:3,
39:20, 40:1, 40:17,
40:19, 40:22, 42:20
close [7] - 44:9, 53:8,
53:13, 53:16, 53:24,
69:16, 71:22
closed [3] - 53:14,
56:18, 56:19
closer [2] - 5:21,
5:25
club [1] - 78:7
clusters [1] - 71:25
co [1] - 4:6
co-filer [1] - 4:6
code [1] - 45:13
Cole [1] - 3:12
COLE [3] - 74:17,
74:24, 75:3
collect [2] - 8:17,
37:15
colonoscopy [2] -
66:13, 66:14
column [10] - 11:17,
11:21, 12:1, 12:9,
13:11, 13:14, 13:23,
14:1, 77:14, 77:15
coming [3] - 20:4,
53:10, 56:14
comment [2] - 39:15,
74:5
commentary [1] -
38:19
commercial [2] -
38:22, 39:8
commercially [1] -
40:21
commitment [1] -
71:14
committee [2] - 53:4,
53:5
common [2] - 32:25,
33:25
communicate [2] -
56:13, 59:13
communicating [2] -
56:15, 58:1
communication [4] -
19:16, 56:17, 57:8,
57:21
companies [1] -
25:10
company [1] - 36:2
compensation [1] -
23:16
complete [1] - 48:11
completed [3] - 10:1,
70:5, 71:5
completely [2] -
35:7, 35:20
complied [1] - 42:22
component [5] -
35:25, 39:8, 40:20,
40:21, 41:8
compounding [1] -
33:7
comprehensive [1] -
25:19
compromise [1] -
29:11
computer [1] - 65:4
concede [1] - 7:20
concentrating [1] -
76:18
concentration [3] -
63:5, 65:13, 68:2
concept [2] - 52:16,
53:1
concern [1] - 76:22
concerned [3] - 4:3,
12:20, 47:24
conclude [1] - 15:8
concluded [2] -
79:17, 80:21
conclusion [6] -
3:23, 8:24, 9:22, 28:3,
31:23, 35:2
conclusions [8] -
3:21, 4:9, 28:6, 30:3,
44:6, 48:20, 53:22,
80:18
CONFERENCE [1] -
1:9
conference [1] -
53:13
confidence [1] -
54:23
conjunction [1] -
45:11
Connection [17] -
33:25, 34:22, 35:6,
35:12, 35:16, 35:22,
36:3, 37:4, 38:7, 38:8,
39:3, 39:20, 40:1,
40:18, 40:19, 40:22,
42:21
cons [1] - 67:9
consideration [1] -
77:3
consistent [1] -
36:10
constant [1] - 67:5
construed [1] -
25:18
consulted [1] - 60:19
consumer [1] - 21:7
consuming [1] -
57:18
contact [2] - 10:11,
22:21
contacting [1] -
10:12
contained [1] - 51:20
context [2] - 14:5,
16:3
contingencies [1] -
8:16
continuation [1] -
6:5
3
continue [4] - 6:4,
17:3, 69:18, 75:14
continued [1] - 42:25
continuing [1] -
15:12
contract [4] - 4:16,
22:17, 23:3, 23:4
contractor [1] - 23:5
contribute [1] - 7:23
contributed [2] - 5:4,
7:23
contribution [12] -
6:10, 6:13, 7:19, 7:21,
7:22, 8:1, 9:11, 9:14,
9:24, 15:15, 15:25,
16:4
control [2] - 14:12,
31:9
controlling [1] - 45:2
controls [1] - 42:13
convey [1] - 4:4
conveyances [1] -
33:14
copy [2] - 75:2, 75:6
Corp [1] - 36:5
CORPORATION [1] -
1:21
corporations [1] -
25:10
correct [11] - 16:1,
21:25, 51:1, 51:8,
51:25, 52:4, 52:18,
61:22, 65:4, 76:13
correctly [1] - 20:23
cost [6] - 44:1,
59:17, 60:6, 60:15,
67:11, 69:15
cost-benefit [1] -
44:1
cost-effective [1] -
69:15
costly [1] - 57:18
costs [2] - 14:12,
43:25
counsel [2] - 3:3,
43:21
count [1] - 66:13
counted [1] - 21:24
counterclaim [17] -
10:2, 11:9, 15:13,
18:4, 18:5, 24:7,
26:20, 73:25, 74:9,
75:16, 77:4, 77:5,
77:6, 77:19, 78:9,
78:11, 79:2
counterclaims [6] -
6:8, 9:24, 10:1, 76:23,
78:4, 78:7
Counterdefendants
[1] - 10:5
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 84 of 95
counteroffer [1] -
32:8
country [2] - 48:15,
68:4
couple [3] - 4:12,
54:12, 71:18
course [11] - 3:20,
3:24, 6:21, 8:6, 41:25,
42:10, 42:19, 43:1,
43:14, 69:25, 73:11
COURT [227] - 1:1,
3:12, 4:23, 5:3, 5:7,
5:10, 5:16, 5:19, 6:2,
7:9, 7:13, 8:4, 8:12,
8:21, 8:23, 9:7, 9:10,
9:19, 10:4, 10:23,
11:3, 11:7, 11:15,
11:23, 12:1, 12:5,
12:10, 12:14, 12:16,
12:19, 12:25, 13:2,
13:5, 13:8, 13:13,
13:16, 14:2, 15:12,
15:17, 15:20, 16:11,
16:13, 16:19, 16:22,
17:21, 18:1, 18:22,
18:25, 19:5, 19:8,
19:19, 20:6, 20:9,
21:2, 21:8, 21:21,
22:3, 22:22, 23:12,
24:2, 24:5, 24:9,
24:12, 24:18, 25:20,
26:9, 26:14, 26:17,
26:21, 26:23, 28:21,
29:3, 29:7, 29:19,
29:21, 29:24, 31:1,
31:6, 31:14, 31:21,
32:2, 32:14, 34:3,
34:5, 34:20, 35:1,
35:8, 35:12, 35:18,
35:24, 36:9, 37:6,
37:11, 41:2, 43:7,
43:15, 44:18, 44:20,
45:5, 45:14, 46:5,
46:7, 46:9, 46:19,
47:1, 47:7, 48:5,
48:13, 49:1, 49:7,
49:9, 50:6, 50:19,
51:2, 51:9, 51:16,
51:18, 51:23, 52:1,
52:5, 52:8, 52:18,
52:21, 52:24, 53:3,
53:19, 54:9, 54:11,
54:13, 54:15, 54:17,
54:21, 55:11, 55:14,
55:19, 56:8, 56:12,
56:22, 56:25, 57:3,
58:2, 58:7, 58:14,
58:21, 58:24, 59:5,
59:16, 59:20, 60:2,
60:20, 61:1, 61:9,
62:9, 62:12, 62:20,
63:2, 63:7, 63:12,
63:17, 63:25, 64:3,
64:8, 64:15, 64:23,
64:25, 65:2, 65:15,
66:2, 66:4, 66:9,
66:12, 66:25, 67:9,
67:19, 68:18, 69:22,
70:9, 70:13, 70:16,
70:22, 71:1, 71:11,
71:20, 72:2, 72:5,
72:8, 72:12, 72:19,
72:24, 73:4, 73:8,
73:12, 73:16, 73:18,
73:21, 73:24, 74:1,
74:8, 74:15, 74:20,
74:23, 75:2, 75:5,
75:21, 75:24, 76:7,
76:9, 76:22, 77:8,
77:18, 77:24, 78:6,
78:15, 78:19, 78:24,
79:1, 79:4, 79:6, 79:9,
79:18, 79:22, 79:25,
80:4, 80:8, 80:11,
80:14, 80:17
court [7] - 27:14,
46:16, 50:2, 68:20,
74:7, 74:24, 75:13
Court [15] - 2:1, 2:2,
6:18, 17:8, 20:24,
21:17, 33:2, 33:3,
33:8, 38:25, 51:6,
60:7, 65:25, 76:16,
81:7
Court's [6] - 4:6,
9:21, 9:22, 20:24,
21:13, 23:24
courtroom [1] - 53:6
COURTROOM [1] -
3:1
courts [2] - 33:10,
33:16
cover [1] - 52:2
covered [4] - 25:1,
26:13, 26:14
covers [3] - 24:16,
25:8, 49:15
creates [1] - 20:15
creative [1] - 76:12
credence [1] - 73:1
creek [1] - 48:17
criminal [1] - 74:24
critical [3] - 61:12,
63:9, 64:20
cross [5] - 8:15,
14:14, 27:23, 78:3,
78:4
cross-examine [1] -
27:23
cross-section [2] -
14:14, 78:3
CRR [2] - 2:1, 81:6
cure [1] - 75:8
curtailed [1] - 57:18
customs [1] - 68:5
cut [3] - 29:15,
30:17, 41:21
cutoff [1] - 13:3
D
damages [2] - 6:15,
6:17
date [7] - 69:8,
71:12, 71:17, 73:10,
76:21, 80:5, 80:7
DATE [1] - 81:6
dates [3] - 70:10,
72:17, 73:22
David [2] - 3:8, 13:17
DAVID [1] - 1:17
days [1] - 73:14
deadlines [1] - 65:16
deal [5] - 17:10,
24:21, 26:24, 32:13,
59:22
dealing [3] - 6:18,
37:2, 60:16
deals [1] - 79:2
December [2] -
72:21, 73:2
decision [11] - 3:23,
4:5, 4:6, 4:10, 20:24,
31:10, 31:22, 39:1,
48:19, 48:23, 55:22
decisions [2] - 31:9,
31:18
declaration [9] -
46:15, 46:23, 49:21,
49:23, 49:25, 50:20,
50:22, 52:12
declaratory [5] -
6:19, 46:3, 46:10,
46:14, 46:22
declare [2] - 49:21,
50:5
declared [2] - 51:10,
51:13
declaring [2] - 6:19,
52:10
deeply [1] - 14:16
default [1] - 8:21
defeat [1] - 9:6
defend [1] - 75:20
Defendant [12] - 3:9,
5:19, 6:8, 8:8, 9:2,
11:7, 27:12, 27:21,
43:22, 44:10, 59:21,
66:1
Defendants [6] -
10:2, 11:11, 12:21,
14:3, 43:17, 77:5
defense [11] - 33:14,
42:2, 42:3, 42:5,
42:14, 42:17, 50:17,
51:23, 52:1, 52:15,
52:21
defenses [4] - 37:14,
50:12, 50:13, 51:20
defined [1] - 34:14
defining [1] - 33:13
definition [1] - 36:3
delayed [1] - 60:11
delays [1] - 76:20
demanding [1] -
29:12
denied [1] - 70:7
dense [1] - 64:4
dental [2] - 57:6,
62:15
dentist [7] - 15:4,
15:10, 17:6, 17:9,
17:10, 17:15, 21:4
dentists [2] - 10:10,
22:25
denying [1] - 42:8
depart [1] - 70:18
dependent [2] -
36:24, 37:18
depose [3] - 11:12,
18:19, 22:5
deposed [2] - 11:13,
14:13
deposing [1] - 14:11
deposition [4] -
10:19, 10:21, 14:25,
17:24
depositions [1] -
14:3
DEPUTY [1] - 3:1
describing [2] - 49:2,
49:3
description [1] -
24:15
designated [1] -
65:22
determined [1] -
17:8
developed [1] -
36:14
died [1] - 54:11
Diego [6] - 71:22,
71:24, 72:3, 72:4,
72:5, 72:9
differ [1] - 36:15
difference [3] - 45:3,
49:17, 78:13
different [10] - 14:15,
18:16, 22:1, 23:10,
4
33:8, 40:8, 40:23,
56:16, 67:20
differing [1] - 40:17
difficult [2] - 63:9,
64:15
difficulties [1] -
32:16
difficulty [1] - 63:19
diligence [1] - 21:6
dime [1] - 67:17
direct [1] - 27:18
directed [1] - 47:16
directions [1] - 59:14
directly [3] - 56:18,
74:18, 74:25
directors [1] - 25:12
disagree [1] - 21:13
disagreement [1] -
47:11
disclosing [1] - 27:7
disclosure [1] - 53:9
discouraging [1] -
79:7
discovery [5] - 9:25,
10:1, 14:5, 14:22,
18:19
discrete [2] - 4:13,
38:15
discussed [1] -
53:17
discussion [1] -
60:21
discussions [3] -
28:13, 28:15, 60:7
dismiss [8] - 9:11,
24:3, 25:6, 78:23,
78:24, 79:2, 79:7,
79:11
dismissal [1] - 52:11
dismissed [6] -
49:19, 49:24, 50:3,
62:22, 65:23, 66:1
dismissing [1] - 9:13
dispensed [1] - 6:25
dispute [1] - 44:4
DISTRICT [3] - 1:1,
1:1, 1:10
district [2] - 74:7,
75:13
District [1] - 2:2
disturbing [1] -
41:22
DIVISION [1] - 1:2
division [1] - 74:23
divisions [1] - 25:11
doctor [12] - 10:15,
10:16, 15:9, 17:22,
22:15, 23:2, 28:23,
28:24, 57:12, 59:10
doctor's [1] - 66:15
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 85 of 95
doctors [20] - 7:7,
10:3, 10:14, 14:17,
14:18, 14:25, 16:9,
17:3, 20:1, 21:20,
24:16, 24:19, 24:22,
57:8, 57:15, 57:22,
58:3, 60:2, 72:22,
77:4
doctrine [2] - 36:4,
42:21
Document [1] - 46:4
dollar [1] - 29:12
dollars [3] - 5:15,
28:20, 29:2
Donald [2] - 11:5,
13:20
done [12] - 7:23,
9:18, 13:3, 14:16,
33:6, 40:23, 47:18,
48:9, 56:18, 69:8,
71:10, 80:1
door [1] - 15:4
dot [1] - 8:15
doubt [3] - 8:25, 29:7
down [22] - 25:22,
25:24, 26:1, 32:6,
38:10, 41:2, 43:16,
44:9, 48:18, 53:8,
53:13, 53:24, 63:22,
64:2, 65:4, 69:16,
73:22, 74:5, 75:13,
75:17, 78:23
Downtown [1] -
64:16
dozen [1] - 68:14
Dr [11] - 10:20,
10:24, 10:25, 11:1,
11:2, 11:5, 11:6,
11:21, 12:24, 15:2,
17:22
drafting [1] - 53:4
dragged [1] - 76:4
dramatically [1] -
62:1
due [12] - 3:20, 3:24,
8:6, 8:14, 21:6, 25:20,
41:21, 41:25, 42:10,
42:19, 43:1, 43:13
dumping [1] - 27:1
dynamics [1] - 63:10
E
e-mail [5] - 19:16,
57:9, 57:12, 57:22,
58:1
e-mails [1] - 56:14
earth [1] - 74:21
easier [8] - 47:2,
48:23, 49:11, 49:13,
56:4, 62:6, 77:1
easy [2] - 31:12,
63:20
eat [2] - 43:18, 61:4
economic [1] - 14:11
economy [1] - 45:7
EDWARDS [2] - 2:1,
81:6
Edwards [1] - 81:6
effect [1] - 37:10
effective [4] - 47:24,
63:10, 69:14, 69:15
effectively [2] -
61:13, 75:17
efficient [2] - 6:21,
72:13
effort [3] - 35:7,
46:19
efforts [1] - 57:16
eight [4] - 11:7,
11:10, 23:17, 27:10
either [3] - 26:6,
61:23, 72:4
elderly [1] - 54:17
element [1] - 30:5
elements [1] - 42:16
elephant [1] - 61:4
Eleventh [4] - 44:22,
69:4, 69:13, 70:25
Elias [3] - 10:24,
12:5, 12:6
eliminated [2] -
29:19, 29:20
embarrassed [1] -
55:25
emotional [3] - 41:3,
41:4, 58:4
employees [1] -
25:12
encompasses [1] -
76:14
encouraging [3] -
40:10, 60:6, 79:6
end [10] - 4:11, 6:3,
8:16, 41:20, 44:8,
53:8, 53:25, 62:5,
66:23, 69:16
enforce [2] - 46:17,
52:14
enforceability [1] -
42:13
enforceable [3] -
42:6, 50:23
engaging [1] - 24:21
enter [4] - 45:14,
45:19, 65:18, 69:1
entered [2] - 44:17,
50:25
entering [1] - 44:16
entire [1] - 35:5
entirety [1] - 57:15
entitled [2] - 43:13,
81:3
envision [1] - 59:10
Equico [1] - 36:5
equipment [1] -
10:15
EQUIPMENT [1] -
1:5
Equipment [1] - 3:2
equitable [4] - 15:16,
15:24, 17:16, 20:15
error [2] - 47:19,
67:2
especially [3] -
18:10, 21:19, 45:21
ESQ [6] - 1:13, 1:14,
1:17, 1:20, 1:21, 1:23
essential [1] - 42:16
establish [1] - 42:22
estoppel [1] - 20:15
et [4] - 1:14, 1:17,
33:22, 67:14
evaluate [1] - 35:25
everywhere [1] -
27:23
evidence [2] - 9:5,
25:25
evident [1] - 20:25
evidentiary [1] -
35:12
exact [2] - 5:20, 6:1
exactly [4] - 32:5,
46:23, 52:6, 68:23
examination [1] -
27:18
examine [2] - 27:23,
30:19
example [2] - 17:6,
50:10
except [1] - 24:21
excuse [1] - 69:19
excused [1] - 9:4
execute [1] - 8:20
Exhibits [1] - 7:16
exist [1] - 7:19
existing [1] - 4:9
expect [2] - 39:18,
61:22
expected [3] - 6:20,
25:25, 67:12
expensive [4] -
14:12, 26:4, 32:14,
32:15
expert [1] - 40:24
exposed [1] - 77:7
exposure [2] - 77:7,
78:17
expressed [1] - 60:8
extent [2] - 32:3,
35:11
extra [1] - 71:18
F
face [3] - 29:25, 51:4,
74:10
fact [15] - 7:21, 9:22,
30:3, 30:12, 30:13,
39:6, 39:10, 40:5,
42:9, 50:15, 73:1,
78:11, 79:6, 79:17,
80:18
factor [1] - 78:19
facts [16] - 3:21, 4:9,
18:11, 18:13, 19:2,
19:20, 20:1, 20:12,
27:7, 27:8, 28:6, 44:6,
48:20, 53:22, 60:8,
75:6
factual [1] - 39:4
fair [4] - 32:19,
36:12, 54:19, 79:13
fairness [2] - 33:2,
33:3
faith [5] - 33:11,
33:14, 35:17, 35:23,
35:25
falls [1] - 47:14
fantastic [1] - 68:8
far [7] - 5:13, 12:19,
12:21, 32:11, 47:24,
62:6, 69:10
fashion [2] - 50:14,
55:24
fast [1] - 41:3
favor [1] - 44:11
February [1] - 39:1
federal [2] - 29:10,
33:8
fee [1] - 4:21
fee-shifting [1] -
4:21
feeding [1] - 40:9
feelings [1] - 58:14
fees [8] - 4:15, 4:16,
4:19, 5:13, 6:4, 15:21,
27:15, 43:25
few [1] - 38:17
fight [1] - 62:5
fights [1] - 46:12
figure [9] - 7:17,
28:4, 33:10, 35:1,
46:16, 60:12, 60:13,
60:16, 72:8
figuring [1] - 53:24
file [4] - 18:4, 75:21,
76:16, 79:16
5
filed [6] - 3:15, 18:5,
26:8, 42:1, 42:4
filer [1] - 4:6
files [1] - 47:23
filing [2] - 72:20,
78:24
filings [1] - 9:1
FILLER [1] - 1:24
final [11] - 44:16,
45:8, 45:10, 45:15,
45:16, 45:19, 46:11,
48:9, 48:19, 53:22
final-final [1] - 46:11
FINANCE [1] - 1:20
Financial [3] - 12:12,
12:17, 13:1
financially [1] - 16:8
financing [5] - 42:10,
49:22, 50:5, 50:10,
50:14
findings [11] - 3:21,
4:9, 9:22, 28:5, 30:2,
44:6, 48:20, 53:22,
75:6, 79:16, 80:18
fine [3] - 5:11, 55:7,
62:11
fingers [1] - 21:22
first [11] - 4:14, 9:21,
25:5, 26:15, 26:20,
42:1, 42:22, 45:6,
56:17, 60:25, 71:8
fit [1] - 17:21
five [4] - 5:14, 29:18,
29:19, 29:20
flesh [1] - 9:14
Floor [2] - 2:3, 81:7
FLORIDA [1] - 1:1
Florida [17] - 1:4,
1:15, 1:19, 1:25, 2:3,
17:7, 21:11, 33:16,
33:25, 42:11, 43:9,
63:4, 63:21, 63:23,
63:24, 64:25, 81:8
fly [1] - 53:5
focus [3] - 14:24,
58:4, 72:21
focuses [1] - 24:23
folks [2] - 53:19,
61:16
follow [2] - 20:23,
59:14
followed [1] - 31:20
following [4] - 16:14,
20:23, 62:12, 70:15
FOR [3] - 1:13, 1:17,
1:20
forced [1] - 32:23
foreclosed [1] -
11:17
foregoing [1] - 81:2
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 86 of 95
foremost [1] - 56:17
forever [1] - 39:16
forgot [1] - 69:22
formal [1] - 29:16
formally [1] - 40:7
former [1] - 13:25
forth [1] - 15:22
forum [1] - 55:8
forward [6] - 7:15,
40:6, 59:18, 59:21,
60:15, 69:9
four [4] - 34:17, 50:4,
53:11, 60:8
four-year-old [1] -
53:11
frame [1] - 45:14
Francisco [2] -
71:24, 72:4
frankly [1] - 26:9
fraud [1] - 18:11
fraudulent [1] -
33:14
free [1] - 15:6
friend [2] - 19:12,
20:20
friends [2] - 10:9,
21:12
frustrating [1] - 26:4
full [1] - 53:9
fully [1] - 52:14
fund [1] - 13:7
funding [1] - 13:4
funeral [1] - 66:4
future [2] - 51:12,
62:16
G
game [2] - 55:21,
65:16
gander [1] - 21:15
gatekeeper [1] -
40:14
general [2] - 24:15,
25:18
geographic [6] -
22:11, 61:6, 63:4,
63:18, 63:20, 67:8
get-go [2] - 30:5,
37:8
gist [1] - 26:3
given [3] - 26:25,
39:10, 44:8
glimpse [1] - 51:11
global [1] - 55:16
goal [1] - 67:4
God [2] - 48:13,
48:17
good-faith [1] -
33:14
goodness [1] - 58:12
Google [3] - 56:18,
57:5, 57:21
goose [1] - 21:15
Gossett [11] - 3:4,
3:6, 25:20, 29:7, 30:4,
49:13, 55:17, 61:22,
62:10, 76:13, 77:13
GOSSETT [125] -
1:13, 1:14, 1:14, 3:4,
3:6, 4:20, 5:1, 5:6,
5:9, 5:14, 5:17, 5:23,
8:18, 8:22, 8:25, 9:9,
9:17, 9:20, 10:6,
10:24, 11:4, 11:11,
11:19, 11:24, 12:3,
12:6, 12:11, 12:15,
12:17, 12:21, 12:23,
13:1, 13:3, 13:6,
13:11, 13:14, 13:17,
13:19, 13:24, 14:4,
22:1, 22:4, 22:7, 22:9,
22:24, 23:14, 23:24,
24:4, 24:8, 24:10,
24:13, 24:25, 26:7,
26:13, 26:15, 26:19,
28:15, 28:23, 29:4,
30:22, 31:2, 31:8,
31:16, 41:23, 43:8,
44:15, 44:19, 45:7,
47:13, 47:15, 48:8,
53:16, 54:5, 55:18,
55:23, 56:11, 56:16,
57:4, 58:6, 58:8,
58:16, 58:22, 58:25,
59:6, 59:19, 59:25,
62:11, 62:14, 62:23,
63:22, 64:1, 64:11,
64:21, 65:6, 65:24,
66:3, 66:7, 66:11,
66:24, 67:4, 67:11,
69:18, 69:24, 70:12,
70:19, 70:24, 71:3,
71:12, 72:16, 72:20,
72:25, 73:5, 73:9,
73:14, 73:17, 73:20,
73:22, 73:25, 74:2,
74:21, 76:6, 77:3,
77:21, 80:16
Gossett's [1] - 78:22
grabbing [1] - 30:19
grand [1] - 29:18
grandchildren [1] -
66:6
grant [1] - 18:3
granted [2] - 18:15,
70:3
granting [2] - 42:8,
44:22
grappling [1] - 45:22
graveyard [1] - 39:11
great [6] - 15:5,
17:10, 54:19, 58:3,
68:9, 72:13
greater [1] - 19:8
greatest [2] - 20:10,
70:2
ground [2] - 45:3,
50:24
grounds [3] - 9:13,
26:10, 79:10
GROUP [1] - 1:17
group [13] - 7:18,
55:15, 56:9, 56:18,
56:20, 57:5, 57:15,
57:21, 57:23, 59:15,
61:5, 63:8, 65:10
groups [1] - 55:15
guarantee [1] - 61:23
guarantees [1] -
61:18
guess [2] - 19:1,
55:7
guidance [2] - 32:21,
33:4
guideline [1] - 40:13
guilty [2] - 6:2, 27:1
guy [1] - 20:11
guys [1] - 76:10
H
Haas [4] - 10:25,
12:10, 12:11, 12:24
half [8] - 4:24, 5:2,
5:15, 30:18, 43:17,
43:18, 68:14
hall [2] - 15:4, 17:9
halved [1] - 56:10
hand [2] - 61:25,
68:16
handle [1] - 58:9
handy [1] - 13:21
happily [1] - 17:6
happy [4] - 32:7,
53:12, 74:12, 78:14
hard [3] - 48:23,
63:2, 77:7
head [2] - 10:7,
78:12
heading [1] - 35:16
health [1] - 54:19
hear [3] - 5:23,
66:22, 72:16
heard [2] - 9:3, 14:19
hearing [3] - 6:21,
39:24, 42:24
heart [1] - 66:9
held [2] - 6:12, 21:19
hell [1] - 30:13
help [4] - 22:13,
44:12, 45:18, 50:2
helpful [3] - 30:1,
44:20, 54:6
helping [1] - 35:25
herding [1] - 57:25
hereby [1] - 81:2
hereto [1] - 47:8
high [1] - 30:13
history [2] - 33:18,
36:3
hit [2] - 16:22, 16:24
hold [3] - 78:22,
80:5, 80:9
holder [7] - 3:20,
3:24, 8:6, 41:25,
42:10, 42:19, 43:13
holders [1] - 43:1
holding [1] - 55:25
holdouts [1] - 62:5
hole [1] - 33:15
Hollywood [1] - 1:15
honest [1] - 41:19
honestly [2] - 17:23,
62:8
Honor [24] - 6:14,
8:7, 9:20, 10:17,
11:25, 12:22, 14:4,
15:14, 17:23, 18:17,
26:22, 29:9, 31:25,
35:15, 39:10, 39:23,
41:5, 41:13, 51:11,
54:6, 54:10, 55:18,
60:18, 74:4
HONORABLE [1] -
1:9
hope [1] - 61:15
hoped [1] - 44:9
hopefully [2] - 18:14,
76:25
horses [1] - 48:13
hour [2] - 60:1, 60:5
hours [1] - 68:21
house [1] - 67:13
Hubbard [2] - 74:17,
74:19
I
idea [6] - 14:17,
29:22, 34:21, 40:25,
41:20, 62:9
ideas [1] - 41:20
identified [2] - 47:8,
65:19
identify [1] - 66:19
ill [2] - 54:16, 54:18
6
immediate [1] -
58:12
immovable [1] -
66:15
impact [5] - 53:21,
75:10, 75:12, 76:23,
77:18
importance [1] -
59:10
important [4] - 25:5,
50:3, 55:3, 66:16
impose [1] - 9:23
IN [1] - 1:4
inappropriate [1] -
60:25
incentive [2] - 72:13,
80:17
include [1] - 75:16
included [1] - 25:14
including [1] - 42:4
inconsistent [1] -
51:5
increased [1] - 30:12
increasing [1] -
59:15
incur [1] - 43:25
incurring [1] - 27:15
independent [2] -
23:5
indicate [1] - 78:8
indicated [1] - 77:13
individual [4] -
17:11, 52:15, 59:23,
65:21
individualized [7] -
20:5, 27:6, 31:15,
51:23, 59:4, 59:8
individually [4] -
19:4, 20:7, 31:10,
55:20
individuals [4] -
19:4, 21:22, 55:6,
75:20
industry [4] - 38:22,
40:20, 41:7, 41:8
information [3] -
12:7, 13:19, 17:12
initial [2] - 7:25,
58:22
inject [1] - 41:15
injecting [1] - 41:20
input [2] - 44:7, 53:3
inquire [1] - 21:18
inside [1] - 20:13
insight [1] - 27:13
insightful [1] - 54:25
insistence [1] -
42:25
insomnia [1] - 75:7
instance [2] - 10:10,
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 87 of 95
28:24
instead [1] - 49:2
instruments [3] -
43:7, 43:8, 43:12
Instruments [1] -
43:10
intend [1] - 4:4
intended [1] - 25:15
intent [2] - 16:8, 17:1
interacted [1] - 17:4
interaction [2] -
10:2, 10:14
interdependent [1] -
54:8
interest [4] - 20:13,
22:12, 46:12, 60:12
interested [1] - 15:10
interjected [1] -
41:24
interjecting [1] -
23:25
interlocutory [4] -
45:11, 74:14, 76:19,
77:15
interplays [1] - 40:17
interpret [2] - 45:13,
51:3
introduced [1] - 34:9
invitation [1] - 56:19
invited [1] - 37:17
involved [6] - 12:12,
17:22, 19:21, 37:22,
46:25, 76:2
Iowa [16] - 7:1, 7:3,
27:2, 46:16, 50:2,
50:12, 51:15, 51:16,
51:21, 51:24, 52:2,
52:17, 76:24, 76:25,
77:12, 77:15
Iqbal [3] - 18:9,
36:20, 48:17
ironically [1] - 33:9
irreconcilable [1] -
51:3
Island [4] - 8:19,
64:14, 64:15, 64:16
issue [31] - 3:21,
4:15, 33:6, 33:16,
34:12, 36:22, 37:1,
37:7, 37:16, 37:19,
37:24, 38:2, 38:20,
39:4, 39:21, 40:4,
40:6, 40:8, 40:14,
40:15, 40:18, 41:13,
41:24, 41:25, 42:12,
44:11, 45:21, 58:5,
69:9
issued [1] - 20:24
issues [27] - 4:13,
4:24, 6:7, 6:9, 6:25,
24:5, 26:24, 27:3,
32:22, 34:14, 34:15,
38:14, 38:16, 38:25,
39:2, 41:9, 41:15,
41:17, 45:22, 55:2,
58:9, 69:12, 74:5,
75:15, 75:16, 79:2,
80:8
it'll [6] - 11:19, 71:21,
71:25, 72:3, 72:5,
76:16
iteration [1] - 26:15
itself [4] - 8:8, 30:11,
59:22
J
Jacksonville [2] -
57:7, 64:2
January [3] - 42:7,
72:25, 73:3
Jersey [1] - 29:11
Johnson [2] - 11:1,
13:10
joint [3] - 7:20, 7:22,
44:23
judge [12] - 27:2,
27:24, 29:10, 31:4,
41:23, 50:9, 51:16,
54:9, 64:24, 75:4,
75:10, 76:25
JUDGE [1] - 1:10
Judge [12] - 4:20,
22:2, 26:7, 29:10,
36:22, 47:16, 56:24,
62:11, 65:1, 70:21,
73:23, 74:16
judges [2] - 27:14,
28:6
judges' [1] - 27:15
judgment [30] - 6:19,
7:15, 8:18, 9:2, 9:5,
42:9, 44:16, 44:17,
45:8, 45:10, 45:14,
45:15, 45:16, 45:20,
46:3, 46:11, 46:14,
46:22, 48:19, 48:22,
48:24, 50:24, 52:24,
69:25, 70:5, 70:7,
70:20, 72:21, 75:22
judgments [4] - 7:2,
45:6, 69:1, 80:14
judicial [1] - 45:7
jugular [7] - 36:22,
37:1, 37:7, 37:9,
37:16, 37:19, 37:24
jump [5] - 34:1, 34:4,
34:5, 34:6, 34:8
junk [1] - 34:3
jurisdiction [2] -
67:20, 74:9
justifiable [1] - 27:25
justify [1] - 27:9
K
K-o-r-p-a-n [1] - 11:4
KATTEN [1] - 1:21
keep [8] - 41:16,
53:21, 57:25, 59:1,
74:7, 75:5, 77:24,
77:25
keeping [1] - 5:7
Kenneth [1] - 11:2
kept [6] - 13:6,
29:23, 38:7, 46:21,
46:22
kick [1] - 75:17
kind [1] - 19:1
knock [3] - 37:19,
42:21, 68:2
knocked [1] - 37:25
knowing [1] - 67:15
knowledge [8] -
19:21, 20:3, 20:13,
36:24, 37:3, 37:18,
37:22, 42:16
known [7] - 16:6,
16:7, 17:1, 17:16,
17:19, 37:13, 40:20
Korpan [2] - 11:2,
13:13
Krollfeiffer [1] -
40:25
Kushnevis [2] - 22:5,
22:19
L
LA [4] - 72:2, 72:3,
72:5, 72:10
LA/San [2] - 72:3,
72:4
lady [1] - 30:15
laid [1] - 27:18
language [10] -
24:18, 25:2, 25:4,
40:16, 47:21, 51:10,
52:10, 52:13, 52:14,
78:12
laser [1] - 58:5
Lasic [1] - 17:2
last [11] - 11:6,
13:24, 33:16, 37:4,
39:22, 41:16, 46:8,
49:18, 73:1, 74:2,
74:4
law [25] - 3:22, 4:9,
9:22, 24:20, 30:3,
31:19, 32:19, 32:25,
33:24, 33:25, 36:14,
43:7, 43:8, 43:12,
44:7, 45:3, 45:12,
46:20, 48:17, 48:20,
53:23, 60:9, 79:17,
80:18
LAW [1] - 1:17
lawsuit [2] - 16:3,
24:14
lawyering [1] - 78:12
lawyers [2] - 8:14,
60:3
lease [7] - 4:20,
11:17, 11:21, 12:9,
13:11, 13:14, 50:22
Lease [1] - 3:2
LEASE [1] - 1:5
leases [2] - 77:14,
77:15
Leasing [1] - 36:5
least [10] - 9:15,
29:19, 45:5, 46:19,
50:6, 53:3, 53:25,
61:19, 64:12, 75:10
leave [3] - 68:22,
69:7, 77:10
leaves [1] - 56:11
leaving [1] - 30:24
legal [7] - 6:10,
15:21, 15:23, 37:9,
37:10, 43:25, 78:12
legitimate [1] - 3:20
length [1] - 24:21
less [5] - 5:1, 17:12,
28:18, 28:21, 29:5
letter [1] - 28:16
levels [1] - 32:24
liability [2] - 9:23,
24:17
liable [4] - 6:12, 8:1,
15:18
lie [1] - 32:23
life [3] - 47:1, 47:2,
77:1
light [2] - 33:20,
38:19
likely [2] - 66:25,
72:4
limited [3] - 14:22,
15:8, 17:24
Line [5] - 10:21,
10:22
line [5] - 24:2, 36:20,
49:18, 78:23
lines [1] - 65:19
Lines [1] - 10:19
lingering [1] - 33:21
Lisa [1] - 41:2
7
LISA [2] - 2:1, 81:6
list [6] - 10:18, 10:23,
11:16, 19:11, 22:22,
74:3
listed [1] - 21:23
listen [1] - 55:22
listener [1] - 54:25
literally [1] - 38:17
litigation [1] - 50:4
LITIGATION [1] - 1:5
Litigation [1] - 3:2
LLC [3] - 1:4, 1:17,
3:2
LLP [2] - 1:21, 1:24
loan [1] - 12:25
loans [1] - 30:12
local [3] - 68:4, 68:6,
68:13
localized [1] - 68:11
located [1] - 63:25
location [4] - 61:6,
64:3, 65:20, 68:5
locations [2] - 14:15,
72:1
logic [1] - 20:24
logistically [1] -
32:12
logistics [1] - 62:6
look [15] - 6:7, 8:12,
19:18, 21:9, 22:11,
27:12, 27:14, 32:6,
38:23, 44:1, 44:21,
48:3, 51:9, 56:8,
61:18
looked [5] - 6:11,
7:14, 14:7, 26:1, 74:8
looking [9] - 4:12,
7:17, 18:9, 20:20,
22:18, 45:24, 49:10,
59:21, 74:10
Los [4] - 64:10,
64:11, 71:22, 71:23
lose [1] - 60:11
loss [5] - 16:2, 16:16,
16:18, 17:14
luck [1] - 4:25
lucky [2] - 70:9
M
ma'am [14] - 5:1, 5:2,
5:6, 12:18, 54:5, 59:6,
59:19, 62:23, 66:3,
70:19, 71:3, 73:17,
80:16
Madison [1] - 1:22
mail [5] - 19:16, 57:9,
57:12, 57:22, 58:1
mails [1] - 56:14
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 88 of 95
main [1] - 14:18
manageable [3] -
41:16, 55:15, 55:24
March [1] - 73:10
market [1] - 61:14
Marketing [5] -
11:21, 12:9, 13:12,
13:14, 14:1
marketing [4] - 12:4,
17:7, 47:20, 47:22
mass [3] - 61:12,
63:9, 64:20
masters [1] - 27:13
material [1] - 42:9
materiality [1] -
58:10
matter [7] - 5:10,
10:8, 24:20, 43:11,
68:5, 73:10, 81:3
max [1] - 69:4
MDL [8] - 9:25,
53:13, 53:16, 53:19,
53:25, 69:16, 74:7,
75:13
mean [31] - 4:23,
5:18, 15:21, 15:23,
17:5, 18:13, 18:25,
19:10, 20:19, 28:21,
30:10, 31:11, 32:6,
39:10, 43:20, 47:5,
48:23, 48:24, 49:13,
50:20, 53:17, 56:9,
56:13, 59:20, 60:11,
63:21, 66:11, 66:12,
68:14, 75:21, 77:10
means [1] - 33:13
meant [2] - 19:2,
33:11
meantime [1] - 44:5
med [1] - 22:12
mediate [2] - 30:2,
66:21
mediating [2] -
54:20, 67:8
mediation [31] -
28:9, 29:9, 31:4, 31:6,
32:6, 54:8, 55:12,
55:20, 61:11, 61:13,
62:21, 63:1, 64:18,
65:19, 65:20, 66:14,
67:12, 67:21, 67:23,
69:6, 69:7, 69:14,
71:13, 71:16, 72:22,
76:19, 77:5, 77:19,
80:1, 80:7
mediations [2] -
68:11, 74:14
mediator [27] -
28:10, 54:22, 54:23,
54:24, 61:19, 66:19,
67:2, 67:4, 67:5, 67:7,
67:12, 67:16, 67:17,
68:6, 68:15, 68:16,
68:19, 69:5, 71:4,
71:7, 71:14, 71:19,
78:16, 79:22
mediators [1] - 67:20
medical [1] - 66:7
meet [4] - 10:12,
35:17, 35:18, 38:20
meeting [1] - 39:25
members [1] - 25:12
memo [1] - 44:23
memorialized [1] -
38:11
mentioned [2] - 39:6,
58:10
mentions [1] - 4:14
Meridian [1] - 1:24
metropolitan [2] -
64:6, 64:19
MIAMI [1] - 1:2
Miami [7] - 1:4, 1:25,
2:2, 2:3, 63:20, 81:7,
81:8
Michael [2] - 3:9,
10:18
MICHAEL [1] - 1:21
mid [2] - 66:25,
79:19
mid-October [2] -
66:25, 79:19
middle [2] - 40:9,
43:16
midway [1] - 72:6
might [5] - 5:21,
34:24, 39:3, 39:6,
39:7
Mike [2] - 64:21, 74:3
million [2] - 5:15,
8:20
minds [2] - 36:15,
40:17
mine [1] - 10:9
mini [2] - 60:15, 62:2
mini-trial [1] - 60:15
mini-trials [1] - 62:2
Minnesota [2] - 17:6,
21:4
minute [8] - 9:17,
11:20, 37:4, 37:6,
41:16, 60:19, 65:15,
68:20
minutes [2] - 59:11,
72:13
misread [1] - 35:20
miss [1] - 73:20
misunderstood [2] -
19:7, 30:22
modified [3] - 69:1,
70:20, 80:14
modify [1] - 52:13
moment [2] - 39:22,
65:5
money [13] - 6:15,
6:17, 7:2, 13:7, 15:21,
16:18, 21:10, 22:16,
22:19, 26:17, 26:25,
30:21, 35:3
month [8] - 4:11,
28:25, 38:18, 44:9,
53:9, 53:25, 69:17,
70:5
months [1] - 28:25
most [7] - 5:9, 7:4,
31:23, 46:1, 49:3,
53:15, 57:11
motion [17] - 3:17,
9:1, 18:3, 24:2, 25:6,
32:18, 42:8, 69:24,
70:5, 70:6, 72:20,
75:22, 78:22, 78:24,
79:7, 79:10
motions [1] - 69:25
mouthful [1] - 61:4
move [7] - 9:10,
25:3, 29:13, 32:10,
67:17, 74:23, 76:16
moved [5] - 25:2,
37:21, 48:6, 48:7,
74:24
moving [1] - 76:20
MR [263] - 3:4, 3:6,
3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 4:20,
5:1, 5:6, 5:9, 5:14,
5:17, 5:20, 5:23, 5:25,
6:14, 7:10, 8:3, 8:7,
8:18, 8:22, 8:25, 9:9,
9:17, 9:20, 10:6,
10:24, 11:4, 11:11,
11:19, 11:24, 12:3,
12:6, 12:11, 12:15,
12:17, 12:21, 12:23,
13:1, 13:3, 13:6,
13:11, 13:14, 13:17,
13:18, 13:19, 13:22,
13:24, 14:4, 15:14,
15:19, 15:24, 16:12,
16:15, 16:20, 16:24,
17:23, 18:17, 18:24,
19:3, 19:6, 19:15,
20:4, 20:8, 20:16,
21:4, 21:9, 21:25,
22:1, 22:4, 22:6, 22:7,
22:8, 22:9, 22:24,
23:14, 23:23, 23:24,
24:4, 24:8, 24:10,
24:13, 24:25, 26:7,
26:13, 26:15, 26:19,
26:22, 28:15, 28:23,
29:4, 29:6, 29:9,
29:20, 29:22, 30:22,
31:2, 31:8, 31:16,
31:25, 32:5, 32:15,
34:4, 34:6, 34:21,
35:4, 35:11, 35:14,
35:19, 36:1, 36:11,
37:9, 37:12, 41:4,
41:23, 43:8, 44:15,
44:19, 45:2, 45:7,
45:8, 46:1, 46:6, 46:8,
46:10, 46:21, 47:5,
47:10, 47:13, 47:14,
47:15, 48:8, 48:25,
49:2, 49:8, 49:17,
50:9, 51:1, 51:8,
51:11, 51:17, 51:19,
51:22, 51:25, 52:4,
52:6, 52:7, 52:16,
52:19, 52:23, 53:1,
53:16, 54:5, 54:6,
54:10, 54:12, 54:14,
54:16, 54:18, 55:2,
55:13, 55:18, 55:23,
56:11, 56:16, 56:24,
57:2, 57:4, 58:6, 58:8,
58:16, 58:22, 58:25,
59:6, 59:19, 59:25,
60:18, 60:23, 61:2,
61:10, 62:11, 62:13,
62:14, 62:23, 63:3,
63:11, 63:14, 63:22,
64:1, 64:5, 64:9,
64:11, 64:14, 64:17,
64:21, 64:24, 65:1,
65:4, 65:6, 65:13,
65:24, 66:3, 66:7,
66:11, 66:24, 67:4,
67:11, 67:25, 69:18,
69:24, 70:12, 70:19,
70:24, 71:3, 71:12,
71:21, 72:3, 72:6,
72:11, 72:16, 72:20,
72:25, 73:5, 73:9,
73:14, 73:17, 73:20,
73:22, 73:25, 74:2,
74:4, 74:12, 74:17,
74:19, 74:21, 74:24,
75:3, 75:12, 75:23,
76:1, 76:6, 76:8,
76:11, 77:2, 77:3,
77:9, 77:21, 77:22,
78:1, 78:10, 78:18,
78:21, 78:25, 79:3,
79:5, 79:8, 79:13,
79:21, 79:24, 80:2,
80:5, 80:10, 80:13,
80:16
MS [1] - 3:11
MUCHIN [1] - 1:21
multiple [1] - 57:14
8
music [1] - 73:20
musings [1] - 48:18
must [1] - 74:8
N
naive [1] - 30:15
name [6] - 20:17,
22:4, 23:4, 23:23,
49:5, 68:19
named [1] - 14:13
names [7] - 10:9,
10:10, 19:11, 22:22,
47:5, 47:6, 78:1
NCMIC [33] - 1:20,
3:9, 3:10, 3:11, 3:19,
4:21, 6:12, 9:23, 10:1,
12:13, 12:23, 16:17,
17:12, 17:14, 19:22,
19:23, 20:3, 21:14,
21:17, 24:14, 25:7,
28:17, 28:19, 29:1,
29:4, 30:10, 37:7,
37:12, 42:1, 42:10,
77:4
NCMIC's [6] - 36:24,
37:3, 37:18, 37:22,
41:24, 42:8
necessary [2] -
18:21, 58:20
need [37] - 3:16,
7:24, 9:5, 17:10,
18:11, 19:1, 19:17,
20:9, 23:25, 28:4,
28:6, 28:7, 30:2,
30:16, 41:2, 45:18,
45:19, 50:19, 52:13,
53:7, 55:11, 55:16,
57:23, 59:2, 59:23,
66:2, 66:15, 68:10,
68:25, 69:3, 70:7,
71:6, 72:22, 74:15,
76:24, 78:6, 78:7
needed [1] - 36:19
needs [6] - 19:8,
44:22, 52:11, 52:25,
69:8, 80:1
negotiable [3] - 43:7,
43:8, 43:12
Negotiable [1] - 43:9
negotiating [1] -
32:9
nEMECEK [1] - 1:20
NEMECEK [1] - 3:10
Nemecek [4] - 3:10,
48:2, 48:8, 73:18
Neumann [3] - 11:5,
13:16, 13:20
never [13] - 16:7,
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 89 of 95
16:8, 17:1, 29:1, 32:8,
34:23, 37:3, 38:5,
38:16, 38:23, 38:24,
39:20
new [9] - 25:22, 38:4,
38:21, 40:10, 41:15,
41:20, 51:14, 68:16,
76:14
New [13] - 1:22,
29:11, 64:5, 64:8,
64:16, 64:19, 64:22,
65:3, 65:7, 65:10,
67:17
next [11] - 4:12,
10:24, 10:25, 11:1,
11:2, 11:5, 15:4,
27:10, 32:12, 48:16,
70:21
NIL [2] - 43:4, 43:7
nine [1] - 31:13
NO [1] - 1:2
nobody [1] - 33:5
none [1] - 50:6
North [5] - 2:2, 22:6,
22:20, 23:1, 81:7
notably [1] - 40:22
note [1] - 66:15
nothing [2] - 9:23,
15:20
notice [4] - 35:17,
35:18, 35:19, 54:4
noticed [1] - 21:21
November [5] -
19:22, 19:23, 30:9,
42:5, 71:13
number [17] - 5:20,
6:1, 14:2, 30:12,
59:14, 61:5, 61:20,
61:21, 62:13, 62:15,
62:18, 63:24, 64:7,
65:6, 65:11, 67:11
numbers [2] - 46:12,
61:25
O
objecting [1] - 44:14
objective [2] - 35:25,
39:8
obligated [1] - 29:17
obvious [1] - 21:14
obviously [1] - 19:10
occurs [1] - 67:21
October [8] - 19:22,
19:23, 30:9, 53:13,
66:23, 66:25, 79:19,
80:6
odds [1] - 75:19
OF [1] - 1:1
offer [2] - 29:16,
43:22
offered [2] - 29:11,
29:14
offering [2] - 30:17,
30:23
offers [1] - 29:14
officers [1] - 25:11
official [1] - 2:1
Official [1] - 81:7
often [1] - 33:3
old [2] - 53:11, 54:15
once [2] - 26:1,
27:18
one [70] - 4:21, 5:4,
6:7, 6:16, 11:6, 11:21,
12:1, 12:9, 13:11,
13:14, 13:23, 14:1,
15:9, 18:16, 21:21,
21:23, 22:18, 23:9,
23:14, 23:15, 23:18,
23:19, 23:21, 27:5,
27:19, 28:1, 28:5,
30:7, 31:19, 33:12,
33:23, 34:16, 34:17,
34:18, 34:19, 34:20,
37:25, 42:3, 42:12,
42:17, 45:17, 47:19,
48:7, 49:7, 50:9,
50:23, 51:2, 52:24,
55:2, 55:16, 58:17,
59:11, 59:17, 60:19,
61:4, 61:6, 64:18,
67:11, 67:23, 67:25,
68:5, 68:14, 69:4,
71:9, 71:25, 74:15,
77:3, 77:13, 77:15,
78:15
one-column [6] -
11:21, 12:1, 12:9,
13:11, 13:14, 77:15
one-day [1] - 64:18
one-way [1] - 4:21
ones [6] - 11:15,
17:21, 20:17, 38:7,
41:23, 50:24
open [1] - 22:14
opening [1] - 22:12
operate [1] - 52:25
opinion [4] - 4:1,
45:3, 80:3, 80:6
opportunity [14] -
17:4, 17:5, 18:4,
19:21, 19:24, 21:5,
21:6, 21:16, 27:21,
51:12, 51:19, 55:21,
58:18, 73:7
opposed [1] - 30:18
optimistically [1] -
70:1
optometric [1] -
62:16
order [11] - 18:20,
26:4, 38:12, 39:21,
41:10, 42:8, 44:11,
46:1, 53:20, 62:20,
65:18
ordered [1] - 14:6
ordinarily [1] - 55:19
organize [2] - 55:15,
55:24
organized [1] - 49:14
originally [1] - 63:14
ourselves [2] - 8:11,
32:9
outliers [1] - 23:9
outlined [2] - 6:6,
60:8
outlying [2] - 64:12,
64:13
outside [3] - 69:8,
71:12, 71:17
overlay [1] - 18:10
owe [1] - 59:5
owed [2] - 28:23,
29:15
owes [1] - 46:17
own [4] - 21:6, 38:18,
40:24, 44:24
owns [1] - 8:19
P
p.m [1] - 1:6
package [2] - 22:20,
30:6
Page [7] - 10:19,
10:21, 10:22, 49:10
page [1] - 69:4
pages [2] - 46:8,
69:4
Pages [1] - 1:7
paid [11] - 8:20,
20:16, 20:18, 20:21,
21:20, 23:7, 23:16,
28:19, 43:1, 58:21,
58:23
pain [1] - 17:17
panel [2] - 53:14,
53:25
paper [3] - 14:6,
17:24, 48:18
papers [5] - 3:15,
3:16, 3:18, 21:23,
35:9
paralegal [1] - 57:11
parallel [1] - 54:8
parent [1] - 25:10
parents [1] - 66:5
part [7] - 13:8, 14:21,
35:24, 36:2, 37:24,
42:8
participate [3] -
61:11, 62:25, 77:4
participating [1] -
9:4
participation [8] -
18:9, 18:12, 18:23,
19:1, 19:2, 19:9,
19:14, 20:15
particular [8] - 3:24,
27:24, 32:20, 50:11,
63:19, 64:3, 65:20,
78:11
particularly [3] - 4:6,
36:13, 64:4
parties [7] - 4:8,
4:13, 6:20, 26:25,
44:7, 60:7, 61:6
parties' [4] - 3:18,
7:14, 35:9, 49:25
parties... [1] - 26:5
partners [1] - 25:11
party [1] - 76:23
pass [1] - 46:16
past [3] - 28:10,
53:18, 55:9
Patel [2] - 11:6,
13:24
path [1] - 32:6
pathology [1] - 40:10
PATRICIA [1] - 1:9
pay [11] - 8:1, 16:9,
17:15, 28:2, 28:25,
30:25, 43:17, 46:15,
68:15, 68:16
paying [2] - 59:24,
60:1
payment [4] - 7:24,
37:14, 46:24, 58:23
payments [2] - 17:2,
17:7
peace [1] - 78:20
penalized [1] - 41:14
pending [1] - 74:13
PENDL [1] - 1:13
Pennsylvania [4] -
22:5, 22:10, 23:2,
23:15
Pensacola [1] - 64:2
people [35] - 10:11,
14:15, 14:16, 19:12,
21:16, 22:21, 23:10,
24:15, 25:16, 25:17,
29:18, 31:9, 31:13,
31:17, 54:22, 56:2,
59:14, 61:12, 61:15,
61:24, 62:5, 62:7,
62:25, 63:5, 63:7,
9
63:17, 64:22, 66:13,
67:15, 68:3, 68:6,
71:23, 72:9, 78:4
per [3] - 28:25, 58:11
percent [5] - 28:18,
28:22, 29:5, 34:7,
62:4
perfect [1] - 21:10
perform [1] - 17:1
perhaps [1] - 66:7
period [1] - 28:19
persistent [1] - 67:7
person [7] - 19:20,
27:22, 47:20, 48:5,
66:19, 66:20, 68:13
personal [2] - 38:19,
66:15
personalities [1] -
67:15
personally [2] -
50:11, 60:6
persuaded [1] - 35:1
pertinent [1] - 50:17
PETER [1] - 1:13
Peter [1] - 10:20
phase [1] - 9:25
PHILIP [1] - 1:20
Philip [1] - 3:10
phone [7] - 57:17,
57:20, 58:1, 58:13,
58:17, 59:1, 59:11
phrase [1] - 33:3
pick [7] - 57:19, 61:5,
61:7, 62:12, 63:4,
63:18, 68:5
picked [1] - 66:1
picking [2] - 57:17,
62:14
pickle [1] - 30:14
picks [1] - 62:18
pitch [2] - 14:8,
14:20
place [2] - 35:16,
56:17
Plaintiff [18] - 4:14,
4:23, 6:9, 7:15, 8:5,
8:17, 11:8, 11:22,
12:12, 12:19, 15:3,
22:3, 27:5, 27:20,
27:24, 44:13, 44:14,
47:17
Plaintiff's [1] - 4:16
Plaintiffs [53] - 3:5,
3:7, 3:8, 3:24, 4:25,
5:14, 6:15, 6:25, 7:3,
7:5, 7:6, 7:9, 7:11,
7:18, 10:4, 11:13,
11:16, 14:5, 14:10,
14:11, 18:18, 21:3,
21:23, 24:20, 25:1,
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 90 of 95
25:7, 29:12, 30:14,
30:15, 32:23, 33:19,
34:2, 34:9, 34:10,
34:17, 34:23, 36:16,
38:20, 40:4, 43:17,
45:15, 47:8, 49:3,
50:22, 53:21, 55:11,
55:15, 55:19, 59:23,
65:22, 66:16, 77:20
Plaintiffs' [6] - 8:13,
28:13, 43:21, 47:10,
49:9, 49:10
plan [9] - 15:12,
48:15, 53:24, 63:4,
65:16, 77:24, 77:25,
78:1, 80:12
playing [1] - 41:14
plead [3] - 19:1,
26:11, 79:12
pleading [2] - 9:16,
26:8
pleadings [5] -
26:22, 36:20, 38:3,
69:10, 76:17
pled [3] - 42:12,
52:17, 52:21
plenary [1] - 34:14
plus [3] - 23:13,
23:14, 47:6
Plus [15] - 33:25,
34:22, 35:6, 35:12,
35:23, 37:5, 38:7,
38:8, 39:3, 39:20,
40:1, 40:18, 40:19,
40:23, 42:21
pocket [1] - 15:21
point [14] - 8:7, 14:7,
14:20, 36:25, 50:9,
59:8, 66:16, 68:4,
70:6, 72:7, 73:4,
76:20, 76:22, 77:8
pointed [1] - 9:21
points [2] - 3:20,
33:23
pointy [1] - 78:12
pointy-head [1] -
78:12
Politan [1] - 29:10
pool [2] - 5:5, 77:24
pop [1] - 21:21
portions [1] - 10:20
position [10] - 17:12,
17:18, 17:19, 19:24,
28:13, 30:10, 59:22,
77:11, 77:16
possible [2] - 55:6,
79:16
possibly [4] - 17:3,
38:20, 71:24, 72:3
poster [1] - 58:2
potential [1] - 7:1
potentially [1] -
50:16
powers [1] - 76:3
practical [1] - 54:25
practicing [1] - 31:19
precisely [2] - 37:17
predecessors [1] -
25:9
prefer [1] - 61:7
preparation [1] -
38:1
prepare [1] - 44:6
prepared [1] - 25:6
preparing [3] - 27:5,
69:24, 69:25
present [3] - 40:22,
41:9, 65:24
presented [1] - 51:21
preserve [1] - 53:20
preserved [1] - 51:21
pressed [1] - 38:6
presume [3] - 5:7,
19:13, 51:24
presumption [3] -
42:25, 43:4, 43:13
pretrial [2] - 38:12,
41:10
pretty [2] - 33:1, 45:4
prevail [1] - 60:14
prevailed [1] - 11:22
price [2] - 59:16,
61:14
principal [1] - 28:24
principals [1] - 25:11
print [1] - 47:20
priority [1] - 66:2
private [1] - 27:15
problem [4] - 27:17,
31:4, 54:25, 75:7
problem-solving [1]
- 54:25
problems [2] - 6:8,
71:18
procedural [4] -
32:22, 41:13, 74:5,
75:15
procedures [4] -
62:16, 66:8, 69:12
proceed [2] - 4:8,
59:17
proceeded [1] -
15:17
proceeding [4] -
12:20, 32:11, 62:2,
78:8
Proceedings [1] -
80:21
proceedings [2] -
70:15, 81:3
process [2] - 35:5,
77:19
processes [1] -
56:17
professionals [1] -
62:15
program [2] - 10:3,
21:20
progress [2] - 68:1,
68:8
promptly [1] - 48:9
proper [1] - 9:16
property [2] - 8:19,
8:20
proposal [1] - 30:7
proposals [1] - 54:21
propose [1] - 63:13
proposed [11] - 4:12,
7:15, 11:14, 14:13,
46:1, 48:22, 48:23,
49:9, 52:10, 70:17,
72:16
pros [1] - 67:9
protect [2] - 8:11,
30:11
protracted [1] -
40:12
prove [2] - 42:18,
42:21
proves [1] - 8:5
provide [3] - 8:15,
11:8, 46:1
provided [1] - 30:7
providing [1] - 58:2
provision [1] - 4:21
provisions [1] -
36:25
punch [1] - 49:18
punish [1] - 20:20
purely [2] - 15:15,
15:25
purpose [1] - 49:24
pursuant [1] - 42:11
pursue [2] - 9:15,
9:23
pushing [2] - 30:7,
38:7
put [23] - 5:11, 6:18,
6:22, 14:4, 15:22,
16:1, 16:20, 19:19,
21:22, 29:16, 32:20,
40:6, 44:23, 45:18,
48:18, 51:12, 51:19,
52:14, 59:16, 60:3,
69:3, 69:8, 80:5
putative [1] - 56:5
Q
questions [5] -
14:23, 17:5, 21:16,
57:12, 58:18
quick [1] - 75:8
quickly [2] - 32:17,
54:24
quite [4] - 26:9,
57:16, 63:24, 64:6
R
rabbit [1] - 37:24
raise [3] - 24:6, 50:7,
73:15
raised [6] - 34:23,
37:3, 37:23, 38:24,
42:3, 50:7
raising [1] - 42:1
random [1] - 61:7
range [1] - 63:15
rates [1] - 46:12
rather [2] - 7:1, 28:3
rational [1] - 71:20
RDR [2] - 2:1, 81:6
RE [1] - 1:4
reached [1] - 56:1
read [9] - 3:16, 4:1,
14:2, 26:7, 35:9,
48:23, 48:24, 49:12,
75:7
ready [1] - 44:8
real [1] - 75:8
realize [2] - 40:5,
53:20
really [22] - 13:8,
14:8, 14:24, 15:7,
15:11, 15:20, 18:20,
19:17, 29:7, 33:4,
36:17, 43:21, 46:18,
48:6, 55:16, 55:21,
64:17, 68:17, 69:19,
74:11, 75:7, 78:7
rearguing [1] - 32:18
reason [8] - 33:5,
39:18, 46:15, 46:23,
50:5, 59:9, 65:25,
71:5
reasonable [4] -
36:15, 40:17, 40:21,
71:11
reasons [2] - 34:24,
77:9
receive [5] - 22:16,
23:3, 23:6, 23:15,
57:8
received [5] - 7:7,
10
22:18, 22:19, 32:8
receives [1] - 17:15
receiving [1] - 17:7
recent [1] - 46:2
receptive [2] - 28:17,
28:19
recess [3] - 65:15,
70:14, 80:20
reciprocal [1] - 4:22
recognize [4] - 8:14,
32:2, 33:2, 70:4
recognizes [1] -
43:19
recollection [1] - 5:3
recommendation [1]
- 27:24
reconsideration [2] -
3:17, 32:19
record [3] - 3:3, 5:11,
60:21
recovery [1] - 18:23
recruit [2] - 22:13,
22:15
redraft [1] - 3:20
reduce [2] - 30:24,
61:25
refer [1] - 43:9
referral [3] - 15:1,
17:15, 19:10
referrals [11] - 7:7,
7:11, 14:16, 14:23,
14:24, 20:2, 20:17,
20:22, 21:24, 23:7,
23:17
referred [4] - 10:3,
10:16, 19:13, 43:11
referring [2] - 7:6,
24:18
refers [1] - 7:16
refiling [1] - 18:8
registry [1] - 22:25
relationship [2] -
12:23, 30:20
release [13] - 24:13,
24:16, 24:23, 24:25,
25:8, 25:9, 25:14,
25:17, 25:18, 26:13,
76:14
released [4] - 24:16,
24:17, 24:23, 25:17
releases [1] - 24:19
relevance [1] - 4:6
relevant [1] - 14:8
reliance [12] - 4:24,
6:9, 8:5, 17:24, 18:19,
26:24, 27:3, 27:9,
27:25, 58:9, 69:12,
80:8
reliant [1] - 33:7
rely [4] - 30:12,
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 91 of 95
47:10, 49:3, 49:6
remain [2] - 3:25,
52:3
remaining [3] - 38:3,
56:9
remember [9] - 10:6,
22:4, 23:18, 28:10,
36:17, 47:9, 47:15,
54:17, 62:14
reminds [1] - 59:6
remote [1] - 62:25
removed [1] - 26:16
repaid [1] - 16:5
reply [1] - 73:3
report [3] - 53:11,
53:14, 76:24
REPORTED [1] - 2:1
reporter [1] - 68:20
Reporter [2] - 2:1,
81:7
representative [3] -
11:8, 11:9, 25:13
representatives [4] -
11:14, 14:14, 25:11,
26:11
represented [1] - 8:9
reps [1] - 56:6
repurchase [2] -
47:25, 48:1
request [4] - 44:15,
46:22, 47:25, 59:3
require [3] - 27:5,
55:19, 65:21
requirement [1] -
35:18
requirements [2] -
35:17, 35:19
requiring [1] - 65:18
rescheduled [1] -
66:12
research [1] - 44:24
resolution [1] - 56:1
respect [3] - 8:14,
25:20, 69:20
respectfully [1] -
21:13
respond [1] - 57:12
response [2] - 72:25,
75:22
responsibility [2] -
30:16, 43:19
restate [2] - 78:21,
79:14
result [2] - 37:21,
39:1
results [1] - 68:7
retainer [2] - 5:3,
56:21
retired [2] - 27:14,
29:10
review [1] - 9:17
revision [2] - 44:6,
80:18
rewrite [1] - 79:1
rid [1] - 72:14
riding [1] - 48:14
rights [2] - 6:19,
50:16
rise [1] - 48:18
road [2] - 74:6, 75:17
ROBERT [5] - 1:14,
3:6, 12:21, 45:7,
73:20
Robert [1] - 3:6
RODRIGUEZ [3] -
1:23, 1:24, 3:11
Rodriguez [2] - 3:11,
73:18
rolling [2] - 27:10,
58:10
Ron [2] - 64:9, 64:18
Ron's [1] - 68:4
Ronald [2] - 3:4, 57:4
RONALD [117] -
1:13, 3:4, 4:20, 5:1,
5:6, 5:9, 5:14, 5:17,
5:23, 8:18, 8:22, 8:25,
9:9, 9:17, 9:20, 10:6,
10:24, 11:4, 11:11,
11:19, 11:24, 12:3,
12:6, 12:11, 12:15,
12:17, 12:23, 13:1,
13:3, 13:6, 13:11,
13:14, 13:17, 13:19,
13:24, 14:4, 22:1,
22:4, 22:7, 22:9,
22:24, 23:14, 23:24,
24:4, 24:8, 24:10,
24:13, 24:25, 26:7,
26:13, 26:15, 26:19,
28:15, 28:23, 29:4,
30:22, 31:2, 31:8,
31:16, 41:23, 43:8,
44:15, 44:19, 47:13,
47:15, 48:8, 53:16,
54:5, 55:18, 55:23,
56:11, 56:16, 58:6,
58:8, 58:16, 58:22,
58:25, 59:6, 59:19,
59:25, 62:11, 62:14,
62:23, 63:22, 64:1,
64:11, 64:21, 65:6,
65:24, 66:3, 66:7,
66:11, 66:24, 67:4,
67:11, 69:18, 69:24,
70:12, 70:19, 70:24,
71:3, 71:12, 72:16,
72:20, 72:25, 73:5,
73:9, 73:14, 73:17,
73:22, 73:25, 74:2,
74:21, 76:6, 77:3,
77:21, 80:16
room [2] - 38:15,
55:11
ROSENMAN [1] -
1:21
ruing [1] - 57:5
rule [1] - 39:13
ruled [1] - 28:14
rules [1] - 41:14
ruling [1] - 50:15
rulings [1] - 16:17
S
safe [1] - 66:24
sales [2] - 14:8,
14:20
salesmen [2] - 17:4,
21:5
salesperson [3] -
10:9, 19:11, 19:12
sample [2] - 11:8,
11:9
sampling [1] - 15:8
San [7] - 65:13,
71:22, 71:23, 71:24,
72:4, 72:5, 72:9
sat [3] - 25:24, 26:1,
38:9
satisfied [1] - 3:16
save [1] - 46:19
saw [2] - 4:12, 49:9
schedule [8] - 47:4,
47:5, 47:11, 49:5,
68:22, 70:7, 70:17
Schedule [1] - 47:8
scheduled [1] - 66:7
schedules [3] - 48:4,
48:10, 48:21
scheduling [1] -
71:19
science [1] - 63:16
screen [1] - 25:2
seat [1] - 3:14
second [6] - 10:16,
11:19, 42:9, 48:2,
55:4, 71:9
Section [1] - 42:11
section [3] - 14:14,
32:20, 78:3
see [28] - 3:12, 3:25,
4:3, 4:14, 4:15, 6:5,
7:19, 21:16, 21:18,
29:24, 33:11, 35:6,
35:9, 39:3, 41:12,
46:5, 61:11, 63:17,
67:25, 69:12, 70:10,
75:18, 76:21, 79:11,
79:12, 79:16, 80:2
seeking [1] - 18:22
seem [3] - 33:17,
33:18, 71:25
SEITZ [1] - 1:9
select [3] - 66:18,
67:1, 79:22
selected [2] - 71:14,
71:21
selecting [1] - 67:19
selection [2] - 69:5,
71:4
self [1] - 20:25
self-evident [1] -
20:25
sell [1] - 10:15
selling [1] - 13:6
send [6] - 28:9,
44:18, 57:9, 57:15,
59:13, 60:10
sending [1] - 75:5
sense [9] - 7:4,
14:11, 17:8, 21:10,
54:23, 56:19, 68:12,
74:13, 78:21
sent [3] - 28:16,
30:1, 75:2
separated [1] - 65:7
September [8] - 1:5,
70:20, 70:25, 71:5,
71:9, 79:19, 80:15,
80:19
series [2] - 27:13,
51:14
serious [1] - 60:7
service [1] - 59:24
Services [2] - 12:17,
13:1
session [1] - 61:20
set [7] - 27:6, 71:16,
72:6, 74:10, 76:21,
79:9, 79:10
sets [2] - 61:13,
61:14
setting [3] - 69:6,
69:7, 79:25
settle [1] - 55:6
settled [1] - 31:7
settlement [9] -
24:14, 28:13, 28:15,
28:18, 29:14, 29:16,
32:7, 56:10, 60:7
settlements [1] -
61:15
settling [1] - 61:12
setup [1] - 56:22
several [3] - 10:20,
56:16, 77:4
shall [1] - 68:19
share [4] - 17:17,
11
30:4, 75:3, 75:10
shared [1] - 58:14
Sharon [2] - 10:25,
12:11
shed [1] - 33:20
sheets [1] - 5:8
Sheridan [1] - 1:15
shifting [1] - 4:21
shilling [1] - 16:9
shocked [1] - 6:2
short [1] - 77:16
shortly [1] - 14:5
show [10] - 5:17,
20:1, 20:9, 29:17,
61:10, 62:20, 62:21,
65:22, 66:17, 75:20
shut [3] - 35:14,
65:4, 75:13
side [3] - 24:22, 26:6,
43:19
sides [6] - 5:12, 35:3,
43:16, 44:3, 44:21,
51:18
sign [2] - 21:6, 50:11
signed [2] - 22:17,
24:13
significant [5] - 6:24,
15:1, 16:22, 16:24,
71:25
significantly [1] -
57:19
signs [1] - 56:20
silence [1] - 33:21
similar [3] - 22:10,
23:15, 56:22
simple [3] - 43:15,
46:2, 46:18
simply [12] - 8:4,
10:8, 10:11, 19:11,
20:9, 20:10, 20:19,
24:20, 30:12, 41:10,
52:11, 56:8
sit [1] - 3:13
situation [2] - 22:10,
23:19
six [2] - 28:4, 68:14
skateboard [1] -
59:24
skills [1] - 55:1
skin [1] - 55:20
Skype [1] - 27:21
Skyping [1] - 63:1
sliced [1] - 20:11
slick [1] - 30:7
slips [1] - 5:17
slow [1] - 41:2
small [2] - 35:8, 63:8
smaller [1] - 68:10
so's [1] - 12:1
solving [1] - 54:25
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 92 of 95
sometimes [2] -
25:21, 64:15
somewhat [6] - 32:3,
33:6, 33:18, 36:14,
41:18, 46:2
somewhere [1] -
63:15
soon [4] - 66:19,
66:20, 68:18, 71:13
sooner [1] - 28:3
sorry [8] - 5:23, 7:11,
7:12, 12:7, 16:11,
19:6, 60:23, 77:14
sort [14] - 7:20, 11:8,
18:10, 21:1, 39:10,
40:10, 43:19, 44:1,
44:21, 45:19, 49:7,
53:4, 54:7, 61:20
sorts [2] - 32:16,
39:24
sounds [4] - 48:5,
71:11, 71:20, 72:12
SOUTHERN [1] - 1:1
spa [2] - 22:12
space [1] - 49:11
sparse [1] - 32:20
speaking [2] - 59:2,
67:17
special [1] - 27:13
specific [8] - 18:15,
38:4, 38:11, 50:16,
50:19, 51:4, 56:19,
57:12
specifically [3] -
16:1, 25:15, 36:5
specifics [3] - 15:9,
18:18, 29:1
speed [2] - 54:24,
68:17
spell [1] - 11:3
spelled [1] - 78:8
spend [3] - 6:4, 44:2,
58:19
spending [2] - 35:3,
59:10
spent [6] - 5:12,
5:14, 5:19, 5:21, 27:1,
60:8
split [1] - 43:16
spot [1] - 55:22
spouse [1] - 66:5
stage [3] - 9:16,
32:11, 32:12
stand [1] - 34:24
standalone [1] - 36:7
standard [7] - 18:10,
21:19, 33:1, 40:5,
40:21, 44:22, 45:2
standards [5] -
38:22, 39:25, 41:7,
41:9
stands [1] - 35:16
start [7] - 14:11,
16:11, 21:11, 27:9,
43:21, 79:25, 80:1
started [1] - 40:8
starting [1] - 61:4
State [1] - 33:7
state [6] - 3:3, 27:14,
63:20, 63:22, 63:23,
64:1
statement [1] - 50:13
States [2] - 2:2, 81:7
STATES [2] - 1:1,
1:10
states [3] - 14:15,
55:23, 56:2
stating [1] - 78:13
statistically [1] -
77:22
status [1] - 41:24
STATUS [1] - 1:9
statute [16] - 3:19,
4:17, 33:8, 33:22,
35:13, 35:20, 36:6,
36:10, 39:24, 39:25,
40:16, 42:13, 42:19,
42:23, 43:3, 43:5
Statute [1] - 42:11
statutes [1] - 33:1
statutory [1] - 34:23
stay [3] - 69:11,
69:20, 75:15
stayed [2] - 69:19,
74:13
staying [1] - 74:5
step [1] - 9:21
steps [3] - 4:12,
8:11, 68:10
stereotype [1] - 58:3
STEVEN [1] - 1:17
still [18] - 7:4, 7:10,
7:19, 8:8, 11:15,
11:22, 28:2, 32:25,
35:13, 35:17, 38:14,
39:25, 42:20, 43:12,
52:2, 57:19, 61:2,
68:10
stop [2] - 35:14,
57:16
stray [1] - 39:15
Street [1] - 1:15
stricken [1] - 27:20
structure [1] - 49:11
structured [1] - 17:2
stuff [1] - 39:17
subject [2] - 8:10,
78:4
subjective [1] - 39:8
submission [1] -
46:2
submissions [2] -
7:14, 43:2
subrogation [3] -
15:16, 15:24, 17:16
Subsection [1] -
35:20
subsidiaries [1] -
25:10
substantial [4] -
40:3, 41:12, 45:3,
45:12
substantive [3] -
6:23, 33:24, 40:3
substantively [1] -
32:25
succeeded [1] -
41:21
successful [1] - 67:6
successors [1] -
25:9
suddenly [2] - 38:21,
75:21
suffer [1] - 17:14
suffered [1] - 16:2
suggest [6] - 18:8,
19:2, 44:10, 49:20,
60:24, 67:24
suggesting [3] -
19:3, 67:19, 67:22
suggestion [4] -
69:2, 70:24, 73:9,
75:12
suggestions [3] -
55:17, 67:10, 71:1
Suite [2] - 1:18, 1:24
sum [1] - 60:13
summary [11] - 9:2,
9:5, 42:9, 44:17, 45:6,
50:24, 69:25, 70:5,
70:6, 72:21, 75:22
support [1] - 18:12
suppose [1] - 49:4
supposed [4] - 23:3,
23:6, 23:15, 37:19
supposedly [1] -
24:21
surprising [1] -
36:14
surviving [1] - 65:10
suspect [1] - 70:4
sustainable [1] -
20:25
system [1] - 15:5
T
tag [3] - 54:2, 54:3,
59:16
tag-along [2] - 54:2,
54:3
team [1] - 58:15
teed [1] - 38:21
teeing [1] - 38:25
ten [2] - 65:15, 68:20
ten-minute [2] -
65:15, 68:20
term [1] - 77:16
terminate [1] - 74:6
terrible [1] - 35:4
terrific [1] - 15:6
test [5] - 35:23,
35:24, 36:7, 36:9,
53:10
testified [2] - 15:3,
15:9
testify [2] - 7:5, 41:8
testifying [1] - 14:19
testimony [5] - 4:7,
6:21, 6:24, 9:3, 18:20
Texan [1] - 67:18
Texans [1] - 67:16
Texas [5] - 23:10,
23:18, 23:21, 65:14,
67:16
THE [228] - 1:9, 3:1,
3:12, 4:23, 5:3, 5:7,
5:10, 5:16, 5:19, 6:2,
7:9, 7:13, 8:4, 8:12,
8:21, 8:23, 9:7, 9:10,
9:19, 10:4, 10:23,
11:3, 11:7, 11:15,
11:23, 12:1, 12:5,
12:10, 12:14, 12:16,
12:19, 12:25, 13:2,
13:5, 13:8, 13:13,
13:16, 14:2, 15:12,
15:17, 15:20, 16:11,
16:13, 16:19, 16:22,
17:21, 18:1, 18:22,
18:25, 19:5, 19:8,
19:19, 20:6, 20:9,
21:2, 21:8, 21:21,
22:3, 22:22, 23:12,
24:2, 24:5, 24:9,
24:12, 24:18, 25:20,
26:9, 26:14, 26:17,
26:21, 26:23, 28:21,
29:3, 29:7, 29:19,
29:21, 29:24, 31:1,
31:6, 31:14, 31:21,
32:2, 32:14, 34:3,
34:5, 34:20, 35:1,
35:8, 35:12, 35:18,
35:24, 36:9, 37:6,
37:11, 41:2, 43:7,
43:15, 44:18, 44:20,
45:5, 45:14, 46:5,
46:7, 46:9, 46:19,
12
47:1, 47:7, 48:5,
48:13, 49:1, 49:7,
49:9, 50:6, 50:19,
51:2, 51:9, 51:16,
51:18, 51:23, 52:1,
52:5, 52:8, 52:18,
52:21, 52:24, 53:3,
53:19, 54:9, 54:11,
54:13, 54:15, 54:17,
54:21, 55:11, 55:14,
55:19, 56:8, 56:12,
56:22, 56:25, 57:3,
58:2, 58:7, 58:14,
58:21, 58:24, 59:5,
59:16, 59:20, 60:2,
60:20, 61:1, 61:9,
62:9, 62:12, 62:20,
63:2, 63:7, 63:12,
63:17, 63:25, 64:3,
64:8, 64:15, 64:23,
64:25, 65:2, 65:15,
66:2, 66:4, 66:9,
66:12, 66:25, 67:9,
67:19, 68:18, 69:22,
70:9, 70:13, 70:16,
70:22, 71:1, 71:11,
71:20, 72:2, 72:5,
72:8, 72:12, 72:19,
72:24, 73:4, 73:8,
73:12, 73:16, 73:18,
73:21, 73:24, 74:1,
74:8, 74:15, 74:20,
74:23, 75:2, 75:5,
75:21, 75:24, 76:7,
76:9, 76:22, 77:8,
77:18, 77:24, 78:6,
78:15, 78:19, 78:24,
79:1, 79:4, 79:6, 79:9,
79:18, 79:22, 79:25,
80:4, 80:8, 80:11,
80:14, 80:17
theme [1] - 39:16
themselves [5] -
26:17, 30:14, 30:19,
43:20, 75:20
theories [13] - 6:16,
15:23, 25:22, 34:17,
36:23, 37:18, 38:10,
38:15, 39:11, 39:12,
40:11, 41:20, 78:12
theory [16] - 16:25,
17:16, 18:6, 28:1,
34:9, 34:10, 34:18,
36:21, 37:2, 37:12,
38:5, 39:2, 51:6, 51:7,
52:22, 76:9
therefore [3] - 7:24,
37:14, 51:5
Thereupon [1] -
70:14
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 93 of 95
they've [5] - 42:15,
51:19, 51:24, 58:21,
58:23
thinking [4] - 55:18,
58:9, 63:14, 75:18
thinks [1] - 76:16
third [6] - 29:15,
29:16, 30:18, 30:24,
76:23
third-party [1] -
76:23
thirds [1] - 30:25
thoughtful [1] - 53:4
thoughts [1] - 27:4
three [10] - 5:21,
5:25, 11:17, 23:10,
23:12, 38:25, 39:2,
67:24, 77:14
three-column [2] -
11:17, 77:14
throughout [1] - 36:3
throw [1] - 43:20
thumb [1] - 39:13
tie [1] - 36:6
time-consuming [1]
- 57:18
timetable [1] - 53:7
timing [1] - 69:5
tip [1] - 35:8
tired [1] - 38:10
together [4] - 44:21,
44:23, 45:18, 69:3
tomorrow [1] - 65:12
took [5] - 10:10,
14:3, 39:2, 74:4,
75:16
tool [2] - 35:13,
35:24
tools [1] - 78:16
top [1] - 10:6
topic [1] - 41:15
tortfeasor [3] - 7:21,
7:22, 15:25
total [2] - 29:15,
29:18
touched [1] - 25:2
tough [1] - 56:12
track [1] - 54:8
transcript [2] -
10:19, 39:23
transcription [1] -
81:3
transcripts [1] -
38:23
transplant [1] -
66:10
travel [3] - 27:22,
67:13, 68:16
treat [1] - 36:6
treatises [1] - 36:13
trepidation [2] -
32:1, 34:25
trial [23] - 9:4, 23:22,
34:13, 34:14, 34:18,
34:20, 38:1, 38:13,
38:14, 38:18, 39:7,
39:9, 39:21, 39:22,
40:9, 60:15, 67:2,
69:19, 70:8, 73:9,
73:12
trials [1] - 62:2
tricky [1] - 53:1
tried [2] - 14:14,
33:12
troubling [1] - 26:23
true [5] - 16:7, 30:6,
31:20, 50:6, 51:22
truly [1] - 29:24
trump [1] - 51:5
trust [1] - 45:24
trustee [5] - 8:9,
8:10, 76:2, 76:12
trustees [1] - 76:3
trusty [1] - 48:17
try [9] - 30:2, 39:5,
41:17, 60:16, 68:2,
68:8, 73:15, 78:2,
78:3
trying [21] - 14:12,
29:23, 33:10, 34:12,
34:22, 36:17, 38:15,
39:22, 40:1, 40:7,
40:18, 40:19, 40:22,
41:9, 41:14, 41:15,
41:16, 41:17, 41:19,
53:8
Ts [1] - 8:15
turn [1] - 26:23
tweak [3] - 44:24,
49:7, 50:8
Twelfth [2] - 2:3,
81:7
two [21] - 6:7, 25:5,
27:3, 28:9, 30:25,
32:24, 33:23, 34:24,
44:21, 45:6, 46:8,
48:16, 51:2, 52:8,
52:9, 55:2, 68:21,
69:4, 71:25, 73:1,
73:14
two-thirds [1] -
30:25
Twombly [2] - 18:9,
36:20
type [2] - 18:13, 49:1
U
UCC [5] - 32:20,
33:11, 43:3, 43:5,
45:13
ultimate [2] - 3:23,
31:22
ultimately [2] -
18:16, 70:7
umbra [1] - 25:17
unclear [1] - 33:6
under [6] - 4:21,
18:6, 18:9, 42:19,
42:20, 43:4
undergoing [1] -
66:9
understood [2] - 7:7,
14:20
undertake [1] - 28:8
unenforceable [3] -
49:22, 50:5, 51:14
Uniform [1] - 43:9
uniformity [1] -
43:11
united [1] - 2:2
United [1] - 81:7
UNITED [2] - 1:1,
1:10
unless [5] - 20:11,
40:6, 66:4, 69:17,
75:7
unrealistic [1] -
30:20
unreasonable [1] -
71:23
unscientific [1] -
14:16
unusual [1] - 71:7
up [39] - 9:5, 21:24,
24:11, 25:23, 34:18,
34:20, 35:5, 35:14,
37:4, 38:3, 38:21,
38:25, 44:18, 45:10,
47:3, 50:12, 50:21,
51:10, 52:9, 54:24,
57:17, 57:19, 59:13,
60:10, 61:10, 62:1,
62:20, 62:21, 65:16,
65:22, 66:17, 68:17,
68:18, 70:10, 72:6,
74:3, 75:20, 77:13,
79:25
upheld [1] - 16:17
useful [1] - 35:13
V
value [1] - 43:1
variation [1] - 39:15
variations [1] - 36:2
various [1] - 70:17
verbal [1] - 19:16
verbiage [1] - 49:4
Verde [13] - 3:9,
6:10, 9:8, 9:15, 26:21,
28:16, 29:24, 30:23,
48:24, 58:15, 60:21,
67:22, 73:18
VERDE [124] - 1:21,
3:9, 5:20, 5:25, 6:14,
7:10, 8:3, 8:7, 15:14,
15:19, 15:24, 16:12,
16:15, 16:20, 16:24,
17:23, 18:17, 18:24,
19:3, 19:6, 19:15,
20:4, 20:8, 20:16,
21:4, 21:9, 21:25,
22:6, 22:8, 26:22,
29:6, 29:9, 29:20,
29:22, 31:25, 32:5,
32:15, 34:4, 34:6,
34:21, 35:4, 35:11,
35:14, 35:19, 36:1,
36:11, 37:9, 37:12,
41:4, 45:2, 45:8, 46:1,
46:6, 46:8, 46:10,
46:21, 47:5, 47:10,
47:14, 48:25, 49:2,
49:8, 49:17, 51:11,
51:17, 51:19, 52:4,
52:7, 52:16, 52:19,
52:23, 53:1, 54:6,
54:10, 54:12, 54:14,
54:16, 54:18, 55:2,
55:13, 60:18, 60:23,
61:2, 61:10, 62:13,
63:3, 63:11, 63:14,
64:5, 64:9, 64:14,
64:17, 65:13, 67:25,
71:21, 72:3, 72:6,
72:11, 74:4, 74:12,
74:19, 75:12, 75:23,
76:1, 76:8, 76:11,
77:2, 77:9, 77:22,
78:1, 78:10, 78:18,
78:21, 78:25, 79:3,
79:5, 79:8, 79:13,
79:21, 79:24, 80:2,
80:5, 80:10, 80:13
Verde's [1] - 42:24
versa [1] - 71:24
Version [7] - 11:22,
12:4, 12:9, 13:12,
13:15, 47:20, 48:6
version [2] - 12:2,
13:23
Versions [1] - 11:18
vested [1] - 20:13
viable [6] - 7:11, 8:8,
11:15, 16:8, 28:11,
74:11
vice [1] - 71:24
13
view [1] - 21:13
Vijay [2] - 11:6, 13:24
VIJAY [1] - 11:6
Vincent [1] - 8:19
Visl [1] - 17:2
volunteer [1] - 57:4
W
wait [1] - 37:6
waiver [1] - 42:5
wasted [1] - 35:7
water [2] - 18:6,
30:13
wave [1] - 38:21
wedding [1] - 66:5
week [4] - 27:11,
58:11, 70:21, 80:19
weeks [7] - 27:10,
38:18, 39:7, 39:9,
48:16, 71:18, 73:1
weigh [1] - 77:7
welcome [1] - 27:13
well-developed [1] -
36:14
whatsoever [2] -
12:24, 22:21
white [1] - 49:11
whole [2] - 28:4, 37:7
widow [1] - 30:15
WIGDOR [1] - 1:17
Wigdor [1] - 3:8
wiggle [1] - 38:14
willing [3] - 28:24,
43:22, 48:17
wish [1] - 31:18
word [2] - 26:16,
76:2
words [7] - 25:5,
26:12, 33:2, 34:21,
35:22, 45:9, 49:23
workable [1] - 73:2
works [1] - 21:2
worn [1] - 25:22
worse [1] - 17:12
worth [2] - 61:15,
78:20
write [1] - 38:10
writing [1] - 59:12
written [2] - 19:16,
70:2
wrote [1] - 6:14
Y
year [2] - 42:7, 53:11
years [5] - 31:19,
34:17, 50:4, 54:12,
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 94 of 95
14
60:8
York [12] - 1:22,
64:5, 64:8, 64:16,
64:19, 64:22, 65:3,
65:7, 65:10, 67:17
yourself [1] - 21:10
Yuri [1] - 10:24
Z
zealous [1] - 25:21
Case 1:10-md-02183-PAS Document 580 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2014 Page 95 of 95