IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC. d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION, a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 11CH31184 )

KA THERINE CAMERA, an individual, and ) BROADBENT SELECTIONS, INC., a ) Delaware corporation, )

Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Plaintiff Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection ("Plaintiff' or "BWC")

submits this memorandum in support of its Motion for Sanctions ("Motion") P-:Vfsuant to Illinois

~~~-1'/ :._··, ~~; Supreme Court Rules 137 and 219(c). Plaintiff brings its Motion because o~.~e sl~~nBl1ade

in filings with this Court and other representations made by Defendants KaW,erin_~'e~e~ : :.1 < ,-::::; ;;c· Q:r;

-._,_ __ ---("Camera") and Broadbent Selections, Inc. ("Broadbent") (collectively, "J?rfeii~~pt~") ~arding

C.r.·J} ~ the production and contents of an external storage device, which Plaintiff B~lieveiibaaid on

.. .;::.:

discovery documents produced to date and deposition testimony) contained pertinent evidence to

the present litigation. Defendants refused to produce the external storage device as Plaintiff

requested until this Court ordered Defendants to do so. A forensic analysis of the external

storage device after it was produced revealed that it had been intentionally wiped clean of all

electronic data, including the pre-installed operational software. That analysis revealed that

Defendants made filings with this Court based on false information and that Defendants

intentionally destroyed any and all evidence stored on the external storage device. These actions

violate Illinois Supreme Court Rule 13 7 and 219( c ). Therefore, this Court should impose

1

sanctions on Defendants for violating Illinois Supreme Court Rules 13 7 and 219( c ).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On April 1, 2010, Camera purchased with a BWC corporate credit card an external hard

drive ("Hard Drive") that was compatible with the Time Machine® software already installed on

the BWC Macbook she was issued, which is referred to in paragraph 49 of the Verified

Complaint. Pl.' s Mem. in Supp. of Returning Hard Drive and Group Exhibit 2 thereto, attached

hereto as Exhibit 1. On May 17, 2010, BWC terminated Camera's employment. That same day,

Camera emailed certain BWC suppliers regarding her termination and said "[Bryce] wants the

phone & computer back[, he] wouldn't allow me to buy them." Exhibit 2, attached hereto. In the

same email chain, after being told she should wipe clean her electronic devices, Camera told Ken

Forrester of Ken Forrester Wines, "I only worry because Bryce is lawsuit happy & I don't want

to get sued by him. I have someone cleaning up all my personal items on my work phone and

computer tomorrow & then I'm sending Bryce his stuff." Ex. 2.

After Camera was terminated, McNamee received the BWC laptop and BWC cell phone

Camera used during her employment. However, the BWC laptop was returned in an inoperable

condition. McNamee Dep. 88:10-90:14, attached as Exhibit 3. On or about June 4, 2010,

Camera received a notice from BWC's attorney telling her that BWC would seek legal action

against her if she did not stop releasing BWC's confidential information. See Exhibit 4. On

October 8, 2010, Camera sent an email to Gregg Perkins, Bartholomew Broadbent and Catherine

Miles in which Camera said that "[she] was going through [her] hard drive folders last night &

found some interesting bits of information that [she] saved on wines, DA reports, etc." Group

Exhibit 5, pp. 1717 - 1718. That email, and two others sent within hours of each other,

contained BWC documents, including a BWC price list. Id., pp. 1717-30.

Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Camera, dated

2

October 14, 2011, requested to "make available for inspection and copying any computer hard

drives and external storage media or device used or accessed by [Camera], including software

operating systems and any codes in memory necessary to make and/or access encrypted data,

including all documents and email, readable in its own equipment, and which contain

information relating to BWC and/or the allegations of the Verified Complaint, including but not

limited to, the external hard drive referenced in Verified Complaint Paragraph 49." Exhibit 6, p.

3. On or around November 21, 2011, Plaintiffs attorney received Defendant Camera's

Responses to Plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents. Defendant Camera's

response to paragraph 1 objected to the request but nonetheless stated that "Defendant will make

the hard drive referenced in Paragraph 49 of the Verified Complaint for inspection at a mutually

convenient date and time." Exhibit 7, pp. 3-4.

On August 15, 2012, after Plaintiffs counsel again raised the fact that the Hard Drive had

not been produced despite repeated requests, Defendants' counsel informed this Court that he

had the Hard Drive and, after objecting to Plaintiffs request for its return, suggested a key word

search of a forensic image of the device, or, alternatively, stated that he would return the Hard

Drive to the Plaintiff but it would be "blank." The Court then ordered each of the parties to

submit a memorandum of law by August 20, 2012 supporting their arguments regarding the Hard

Drive. On August 22, 2012, Defendants' attorney submitted his memorandum after the Court's

law clerk had to personally request it from the attorney. See Exhibit 8, p. 1.

Defendants' memorandum represented that the Hard Drive contained both personal

information and privileged communications, and that Camera would return the Hard Drive after

all data had been erased and would allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery from a forensic image of

the Hard Drive that was made at the outset of this litigation. See Exhibit 9, pp. 1-2.

3

On August 22, 2012, this Court ordered Camera to return the Hard Drive to Plaintiff

within twenty-one days. Ex. 8, p.2. Defendants failed to timely comply with that order. Instead,

on September 24, 2012, many days after Defendants were ordered to tum over the Hard Drive,

Plaintiffs attorney received the Hard Drive and a letter from Defendants' attorney. That letter

stated that Defendants "were unable to find or access any substantive files contained there. We

believe that there are no substantive files there, only operational and software files that were

included with the purchase of the device." See Exhibit 10, p. 1.

Plaintiffs attorney then sent the hard drive to be forensically analyzed. The forensic

analysis exposed that the hard drive had been intentionally wiped clean of all data, including the

pre-installed operational software. Thorson Deel., ir 8, attached as Exhibit. 11.

On October 26, 2012, Camera testified at her deposition that she had her neighbor,

Charles Michael Melazzo ("Melazzo"), move files from her BWC laptop onto the Hard Drive,

and that she was not aware that the Hard Drive was erased of all data because after Melazzo

returned the device, it remained in Camera's possession and she only tried to access the

information on the device one time. Camera Dep. 83:6-23, attached as Exhibit 12. Camera also

testified that she could not figure out how to open and use the Hard Drive despite the clear

evidence to the contrary. See Ex. 12 at 75:3-5. On December 7, 2012, Melazzo stated in his

deposition that he moved personal files from Camera's BWC laptop onto the Hard Drive without

erasing any information on the Hard Drive, and that both were operational when they were

returned to Camera in May 2010. Melazzo Dep. 23:11 -26:17, attached as Exhibit 13.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 provides that "[t]he signature of an attorney or party

4

constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion or other paper; that to the

best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well

grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension,

modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose,

such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a

pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or

upon its own initiative, may impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both,

an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the

amount of reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion or other

paper, including a reasonable attorney fee." 155 Ill. 2d R. 137.

II. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c) Failure to Comply with Order or Rules.

"The imposition of sanctions against a party for noncompliance with discovery rules is a

matter within the broad discretion of the trial court." Reyes v. Menard, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st)

112555, **22 (1st Dist. 2012) (citing Cyclonaire Corp. v. ISG Riverdale, Inc., 378 Ill. App. 3d

554, 562 (1st Dist. 2007)).

In pertinent part, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219( c) states:

[i]f a party ... unreasonably fails to comply with any provision of part E of article II of the rules of this court (Discovery, Requests for Admission, and Pretrial Procedure) or fails to comply with any order entered under these rules, the court, on motion, may enter, in addition to remedies elsewhere specifically provided, such orders as are just, including, among others, the following:

(ii) That the offending party be debarred from filing any other pleading relating to any issue to which the refusal or failure relates;

(iii) That the offending party be debarred from maintaining any particular claim, counterclaim, third-party complaint, or defense relating to that issue;

(iv) That a witness be barred from testifying concerning that issue;

5

(v) That, as to claims or defenses asserted in any pleading to which that issue is material, a judgment by default be entered against the offending party or that the offending party's action be dismissed with or without prejudice; or

(vi) That any portion of the offending party's pleadings relating to that issue be stricken and, if thereby made appropriate, judgment be entered as to that issue.

In lieu of or in addition to the foregoing, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, may impose upon the offending party or his or her attorney, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount ofreasonable expenses incurred as a result of the misconduct, including a reasonable attorney fee, and when the misconduct is wilful, a monetary penalty.

ARGUMENT

I. The Court Should Enter Sanctions for Defendants' Filing of a False Pleading in Violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137.

Prior to sending the Hard Drive and the accompanying letter to Plaintiffs counsel,

Defendants' attorney consistently represented and filed pleadings regarding supposed privileged

and other information contained on the Hard Drive. The September 20, 2012 letter sent by

Defendants' attorney clearly demonstrates that those statements and filings were false and that

Defendants' attorney failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the true nature of the Hard

Drive's contents. Therefore, the Court should grant sanctions against Defendants and/or their

attorneys for violating Illinois Supreme Court Rule 13 7 and award Plaintiff appropriate fees and

costs incurred as a result of this violation.

A. Defendants' False Filings and Representations Violated Rule 137.

The September 20, 2012 letter shows that Defendants' and their attorneys' pnor

statements and pleadings regarding the contents of the Hard Drive were based on false

information and submitted by Defendants' attorney without performing a reasonable inquiry that

the statements were well grounded in fact. The false pleadings and failure of Defendants'

attorney to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the true nature of the Hard Drive's contents is a

6

clear violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137.

Pursuant to Rule 13 7, the court may impose sanctions against an attorney or party when a

pleading, motion or other document "is filed that is 'not well grounded in fact, not supported by

existing law, or lacks a good-faith basis for modification, reversal, or extension of the law, or is

interposed for any improper purpose." Yunker v. Farmers Auto Mgmt Corp., 404 Ill. App. 3d

816, 824 (3d Dist. 2010). This "rule serves to penalize the litigant or attorney who pleads false

or frivolous matters, or who brings suit without any basis in the law." In re Marriage of

Schneider, 298 Ill. App. 3d 103, 108 (1st Dist. 1998). "Rule 137 imposes an affirmative duty on

attorneys and litigants alike to conduct an investigation of the facts and the law before filing an

action, pleading, or other paper." Id. at 108-109. "The standard for evaluating a party's conduct

under this rule is one of reasonableness under the circumstances existing at the time the pleading

was filed." Id. at 109.

The September 20, 2012 letter shows that Defendants' prior statements and pleadings

regarding the contents of the Hard Drive were false. The September 20, 2012 letter stated that

"as you will learn upon inspection, we were unable to find or access any substantive files

contained [on the Hard Drive]. We believe that there are no substantive files [on the Hard

Drive], only operational and software files that were included with the purchase of the device."

Ex. 9, ~ 1. This statement is a clear contradiction of Defendants' previous statements and filings

regarding the Hard Drive. In addition, the September 20, 2012 letter shows that Defendants and

their attorneys only conducted an inquiry into the true nature of the Hard Drive after it was

ordered to be turned over to Plaintiff. The false statements and failure to conduct a reasonable

inquiry into the true nature of the Hard Drive clearly violates Rule 137.

Moreover, even the September 20, 2012 letter failed to truthfully communicate the

7

contents contained on the Hard Drive. A forensic analysis of the Hard Drive performed after it

was received by Plaintiff demonstrated that the Hard Drive had been intentionally wiped clean of

all electronic data, including the factory installed operational software, and replaced with "O"

(zeros). Ex. 11, iii! 9-13.

Once Defendants' attorneys received the Hard Drive, they had the opportunity and an

obligation to inspect the device to determine whether it in fact contained "privileged" data,

personal files, or information that was relevant to this lawsuit and/or responsive to Plaintiffs'

discovery requests. Their failure to conduct a reasonable inquiry needlessly increased the cost of

litigation for both the Plaintiff and this Court. That failure and the false statements made to this

Court both violate Rule 137. As such, pursuant to Rule 137, this Court should sanction

Defendants and/or Defendants' attorney as requested below.

B. Plaintiff Should Recover The Attorney's Fees And Expenses Incurred Because of Defendants' Violations of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137.

"A party may recover fees under Rule 137 that were incurred because of the sanctionable

paper or pleading" and "incurred in prosecuting a motion for sanctions." Robertson v. Calcagno,

333 Ill. App. 3d 1022, 1028 (1st Dist. 2002). "In assessing the reasonableness of fees, the trial

court should consider a variety of factors, including the skill and standing of the attorneys

employed, the nature of the case, the novelty and difficulty of the issues involved, the degree of

responsibility required, the usual and customary charge for the same or similar services in the

community, and whether there is a reasonable connection between the fees charged and the

litigation." Chicago Title & Trust Co v. Chicago Title & Trust Co, 248 Ill. App. 3d 1065, 1072

(lstDist.1993).

Because of the false representations and papers filed in this matter regarding the Hard

Drive, BWC has incurred significant fees and costs to date, well in excess of $10,000, and it

8

continues to incur fees and costs necessary to prosecute this Motion. These fees and costs are

for, among other things, drafting and filing the Memorandum for Return of Hard Drive, the

forensic analysis of the Hard Drive, and the costs of drafting this Motion and brief. Upon the

entry of the Court's order granting BWC's Motion, Plaintiffs attorney will submit an affidavit

setting forth in detail the fees and expenses incurred by BWC due to the aforementioned conduct.

II. Defendants Should Be Sanctioned for Their Unreasonable Violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c).

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219( c) allows a court to impose sanctions upon any party

who unreasonably refuses to comply with any provision of the court's discovery rules or any

order entered pursuant to Rule 219(c). Although the way in which the Defendants intentionally

wiped the Hard Drive of all electronic data makes it impossible to determine the exact date it was

intentionally wiped, the facts of this case clearly show that Defendants had a duty to preserve the

contents of the Hard Drive. The intentional destruction of evidence contained on the Hard Drive

show a deliberate, contumacious and unwarranted disregard of the Court's authority. Therefore,

in order to ensure both discovery and trial on the merits of this case, this Court should (1) bar

Defendants from introducing testimony or evidence tending to show that the cause for the

Suppliers leaving BWC was BWC's payment issues including, but not limited to, late payment,

and (2) grant a negative inference against Defendants that the Hard Drive would have contained

additional documents containing BWC trade secrets, evidence of conspiracy between the

Defendants, and evidence showing that the reason Suppliers left BWC was because of improper

actions taken by Camera in breach of her fiduciary duties.

A. Rule 219(c) Allows This Court To Impose Sanctions on Defendants for Intentionally Destroying Evidence.

A trial court is authorized to impose a sanction "upon any party who umeasonably

9

refuses to comply with any provision of the court's discovery rules or any order entered pursuant

to these rules" under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219( c ). Shimanovsky v. General Motors Co.,

181 Ill. 2d 112, 120 (Ill. 1998). In Illinois, a potential litigant owes a duty to take reasonable

measures to preserve the integrity of relevant and material evidence. Id. at 122. "Illinois courts

have held that it is unreasonable noncompliance, and thus sanctionable, for a party to fail to

produce relevant evidence because it was destroyed prior to the filing of a lawsuit and, thus,

before any protective order can be entered by the court." Id. at 120-121; see Shelbyville Mutual

Insurance Co. v. Sunbeam Leisure Products Co., 262 Ill. App. 3d 636, 640-642 (5th Dist. 1994);

American Family Insurance Co. v. Village of Pontiac-GMC Inc., 223 Ill. App. 3d 624, 626-628

(2nd Dist. 1992); Graves v. Daley, 172 Ill. App. 3d 35, 37-39 (3rd Dist. 1988).

Discovery has shown that the Hard Drive was intentionally wiped clean of all electronic

data after Camera was aware of impending litigation with BWC regarding her actions involving

BWC's now former suppliers. On May 18, 2010, Camera told a Supplier that "Bryce is lawsuit

happy & I don't want to get sued by him. I have someone cleaning up all my personal items on

my work phone & computer tomorrow & then I am sending Bryce his stuff." Ex. 2. On June 4,

2010, Camera told the same Supplier that she received a letter from BWC's attorney threatening

legal action against her. Ex. 4. Camera's own statements regarding impending litigation with

BWC show that she knew as early as May 18, 2010, that she was a potential litigant. Further,

BWC's attorney's June 4, 2010 letter made Camera well aware of possible litigation with BWC.

As a potential litigant, Camera had a duty to take reasonable measures to preserve the

information and the integrity of the electronic data stored on the Hard Drive. See Shimanovsky,

181 Ill. 2d at 121-122 (If the court were "unable to sanction a party for the presuit destruction of

evidence, a potential litigant could circumvent discovery rules or escape liability simply by

10

destroying evidence prior to the filing of a complaint.") The documents produced by Defendants

and the testimony in this case show that the Hard Drive was operational and was accessed by

Camera as late as October 2010. Ex. 5. Camera sent her October 2010 email after she was well

aware of impending litigation with BWC. Despite this knowledge, the Hard Drive was

intentionally wiped clean of all electronic data, as the forensic analysis of the Hard Drive

revealed. This forensic analysis shows that Camera failed to fulfill her duty as a potential litigant

by intentionally destroying, and failing and refusing to take reasonable measures to preserve,

information stored on the Hard Drive.

Because of such conduct, as set forth below, this Court should impose sanctions pursuant

to Rule 219(c) for Defendants' unreasonable noncompliance with the discovery rules and orders.

B. Defendants' Deliberate and Contumacious Destruction of Evidence Justify Entering Severe Sanctions Against Them by This Court.

Defendants' intentional destruction of the information on the Hard Drive severely

prejudices BWC because it prevents BWC from uncovering evidence that shows Suppliers left

because of actions taken by Camera in breach of her fiduciary duties. Defendants' deliberate and

contumacious actions require that this Court enter a severe sanction against Defendants~ In order

to guarantee a trial on the merits, this court should ( 1) bar Defendants from testifying or entering

evidence that tends to show that the cause for Suppliers leaving BWC was directly related to

payment issues, including but not limited to late payments made by BWC and (2) grant a

negative inference against Defendants that the Hard Drive would have contained evidence

showing Suppliers left BWC because of Camera's actions in breach of her fiduciary duties.

1. Defendant Camera's Actions Prejudice Plaintiff's Ability to Support Its Claims.

In order to determine what particular sanction should be imposed, the Court must

11

consider the unique factual situation of the case and then apply the appropriate criteria to the

facts. Shimanovsky, 181 Ill. 2d at 127. "The factors a trial court is to use in determining what

sanction, if any, to apply are: (1) the surprise to the adverse party; (2) the prejudicial effect of the

proffered testimony or evidence; (3) the nature of the testimony or evidence; (4) the diligence of

the adverse party in seeking discovery; (5) the timeliness of the adverse party's objection to the

testimony or evidence; and (6) the good faith of the party offering the testimony or evidence."

Id. at 124. "Of these factors, no single factor is determinative." Id.

A month after filing the initial complaint, BWC requested the production of the Hard

Drive on the belief that it contained a copy of the files no longer accessible on the BWC issued

laptop that Camera returned inoperable. BWC believed that Camera had been in direct contact

with the Suppliers and had been persuading them to end their business relationship with BWC,

which was supported later by Camera at her deposition and by other discovery. See, e.g., Group

Exhibit 14, pp. BB 29-30, BWC 5008-5013.

Defendants repeatedly refused and/or failed to respond to BWC's multiple requests for

the production of the Hard Drive on multiple occasions. Defendants' claim that the Hard Drive

contained privileged information, which was again argued by Defendants in their August 22,

2012 memorandum, provided additional support for BWC's belief that the Hard Drive contained

electronic stored data that was pertinent to this case. After receiving the memoranda submitted

by BWC and Defendants, this Court ordered Defendants to tum over the Hard Drive to BWC.

However, Defendants failed to timely comply with the Court's order. It was not until late

September 2012, almost a year after BWC first requested the production of the Hard Drive and

only after being ordered by this Court to produce it, that a forensic analysis discovered that the

Hard Drive had been intentionally wiped clean of all electronic data.

12

The intentional wiping of all electronic data stored on the Hard Drive prevents BWC

from uncovering additional evidence that the cause for Suppliers leaving BWC was because of

actions taken by Camera. It also allows Defendants to enter uncontested testimony and evidence

as to their contact, solicitation and relationship with each other and the Suppliers.

Further, Defendants have not provided any evidence to substitute for or supplement the

electronic data lost on the Hard Drive. The facts clearly show Defendants' bad faith in

producing the Hard Drive and wiping its conents. Prior to litigation, BWC requested the return

of the Hard Drive. Camera accessed the files stored on the Hard Drive and sent them to

Broadbent employees, who aided in her in doing so, as late as October 2010. Ex. 5. However,

due to the method in which the Hard Drive was wiped, the forensic analysis was unable to

determine when the device was intentionally wiped clean.

The facts surrounding the delayed production and intentional wiping of the electronic

data stored on the Hard Drive support the imposition of serious sanctions. Because it is not

known with certainty which of the parties was responsible for intentionally wiping the Hard

Drive, none of the Defendants should be able to benefit from the other's misconduct. Therefore,

Defendants collectively should be sanctioned by the court as set forth below.

2. The Court Should Enter Sufficiently Serious Sanctions.

Rule 219 provides the court with a variety of sanctions, including barring witnesses from

testifying, preventing the offending party from filing pleadings relating to the issues to which a

failure to act relates, to award attorney fees, or to enter a judgment against the offending party.

John Mathes & Associates v. Noel, 94 Ill. App. 3d 588, 592 (5th Dist. 1981). "A just order of

sanctions under Rule 219( c) is one which, to the degree possible, insures both discovery and a

trial on the merits." Shimanovsky, 181 Ill. 2d at 123. The purpose of sanctions under 219(c) "is

13

to coerce compliance with discovery rules and orders." Id "An order of dismissal with

prejudice or a sanction which results in a default judgment are drastic sanctions to be invoked

only in those cases where the party's actions show a deliberate, contumacious or unwarranted

disregard of the court's authority." Id. "Where a party has deliberately destroyed evidence, a

trial court will indulge all reasonable presumptions against the party." R.J Mgmt. Co. v. SRLB

Dev. Corp., 346 Ill. App. 3d 957, 965 (2nd Dist. 2004); citing Haynes v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.

of Chicago, 39 Ill. App. 3d 39, 46 (3rd Dist. 1976). "One of the presumptions is that the

preservation of the evidence would have been prejudicial to the party's case." Id.

In Shelbyville, the court barred the plaintiff from presenting any evidence regarding

alleged defects in a product at the center of its claim that they inadvertently discarded before the

other party could inspect it. Shelbyville Mutual Ins. Co., 262 Ill. App. 3d at 643(emphasis

added). Courts also have imposed more serious sanctions for intentional violations of the

discovery rules, like Defendants' violations here. See Peal v. Lee, 403 Ill. App. 3d 197 (1st Dist.

2010) (dismissal where plaintiff intentionally destroyed evidence on electronic storage device).

In this case, the intentional wiping of all the electronic files stored on the Hard Drive

prevents BWC from uncovering evidence showing that Suppliers left BWC because of actions

taken by Camera in breach of her fiduciary duties. Although it is known that the electronic data

stored on the Hard Drive was intentionally and deliberately destroyed, it is not known which

party intentionally wiped the electronic data stored on the Hard Drive before it was sent to BWC.

In order to ensure both discovery and trial on the merits of this case, a just order for sanctions

would be for this Court ( 1) to bar the Defendants from introducing testimony or evidence tending

to show that the cause for Suppliers leaving BWC was directly related to BWC' s payment issues

including, but not limited to, late payment, and (2) to grant a negative inference that the Hard

14

Drive would have contained additional documents and evidence prejudicial to Defendants' case,

including evidence showing that the reason Suppliers left BWC was because of actions taken by

Camera in breach of her fiduciary duty, documents pertaining to BWC trade secrets, and

evidence of the conspiracy between the Defendants as alleged in the Verified Complaint.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests the court to impose the sanctions

requested above on Defendants and their attorney for violating Illinois Supreme Court Rule 13 7

and 219( c ). The Defendants should pay Plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs arising out of their

false pleadings and failure to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the truth of their pleadings in

violation of Rule 13 7. In addition, this court should bar the Defendants from introducing

testimony or evidence tending to show that the cause for Suppliers leaving BWC was directly

related to BWC's payment issues including, but not limited to, late payment, and grant a negative

inference that the Hard Drive would have contained additional documents and evidence

prejudicial to Defendants' case, including evidence showing that the reason Suppliers left BWC

was because of actions taken by Camera in breach of her fiduciary duties, documents pertaining

to BWC trade secrets, and evidence of the conspiracy alleged in the Verified Complaint.

Dated: February 28, 2013

Michael P. Tomlinson Tomlinson Law Office, P.C. 8501 W. Higgins Road, Suite 420 Chicago, IL 60631 Phone: (312) 715-8770 Fax: (312) 726-8707 Firm ID No. 47166

By:

Respectfully submitted,

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC. d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION

~r~P-~ One of its attorneys

15

' '

Exhibit 1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DlVISJ.O~ · · · ... ,,

. . . . \.)

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC. d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION, a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

VS.

) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 1 l CH 31184

Hon. Mary L. Mikva )

KATHERINE CAMERA, an individual, and ) BROADBENT SELECTIONS, INC., a )

Calendar 6

Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

TO: See Certificate of Service.

) ) )

NOTICE OF FILING

Please take notice that on August 20, 2012, we filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County at the Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Return of Hard Drive by Defendant Camera, a copy of which is attached and hereby served upon you.

Dated: August 20, 2012

Michael P. Tomlinson Tomlinson Law Office, P.C. 8501 W. Higgins Road, Ste. 420 Chicago, IL 6063 l Phone: (312) 715-8770 Fax: (866) 625-7089 Firm ID No. 47166

Respectfully submitted,

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC. d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION

By:_~f.~· One of its attorneys

2(;'i ,~.~: ''·n ... IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLtNC:)JS :·: 1 ~i

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC. d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION, a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

VS.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

KA THERINE CAMERA, an individual, and ) BROADBENT SELECTIONS, INC., a ) Delaware corporation, )

Defendants. ) )

Case No. 11 CH 31184

Hon. Mary L. Mikva

Calendar 6

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RETURN OF HARD DRIVE BY DEFENDANT CAMERA

Pursuant to the August 15, 2012 Order entered by the Court, Plaintiff Loest &

McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection ("BWC") submits this memorandum of

law seeking the return of its hard drive from Defendant Katherine Camera ("Camera").

FACTS

On May 17, 2010, BWC terminated Camera's employment after finding evidence

that she was, among other things, breaching her fiduciary duties to the company and

disclosing confidential infonnation to suppliers. In accordance with BWC policy

requiring all company property to be returned upon termination, shortly after her

termination, Camera returned a laptop computer and a phone she had been provided by

BWC. However, in violation of BWC's policy, Camera failed to return a hard drive she

purchased on April 1, 2010 - less than a month after the March 4, 2010 National Sales

Meeting Camera attended at which BWC's policy in this regard was reiterated - using a

BWC credit card she had for work-related purposes and for which BWC paid the bill.

(Deel. of B. McNamee 'U~ 4-13 (and Group Ex. B thereto), attached hereto as Exhibit 1

(providing further detail regarding BWC's policy).) In addition, the computer she

returned to BWC was inoperable after having been "cleaned up" by someone at Camera's

direction. (Exhibit 2 (redacted pursuant Agreed Protective Order).) As such, the hard

drive at issue provides the only manner of obtaining the information that was contained

on that computer.

ARGUMENT

BWC's search has not uncovered any case law directly factually analogous to the

situation in this case, in which a former employee (1) obtained company property for the

purpose of performing her job function, not to store personal items; (2) wrongfully

retained company property after termination in violation of company poJicy, (3) wiped

clean the property she did return and/or otherwise rendered it inoperable at a time when

the employee anticipated litigation from the employer (see Ex. 2), (4) knew the company

property could be inspected upon its return and that she could be terminated at any time,

(5) did not experience surveillance or interception of emails while employed, and (6) did

not have any email accounts accessed directly. Under these circumstances, Camera had

no expectation of privacy in the information she stored on the hard drive, as indicated by

the following case law:

• Muick v. Glenayre Electronics, 280 F.3d 741, 743 (7th Cir. 2002) (finding that the laptops were employer's property and it could attach whatever reasonable or unreasonable conditions to their use it desired and that any reasonable expectation of privacy that an employee might have had was destroyed when the employer announced that it could inspect the laptops it furnished for the use of its employee)1

;

1 The employee also brought a state Jaw claim that a right of seclusion, which protects an individual form intrusive surveillance, id. at 744, but because there is no issue in this case that BWC was improperly surveilling Camera, such a claim in inapplicable here. BWC is concerned only with obtaining the hard drive it owns and the contents on it.

2

• Shefts v. Petrakis, 758 F. Supp. 2d 620, 629-35 (C.D. Ill. 2010) (no expectation of privacy under federal Wire and Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511, 2520, the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, or the lllinois Eavesdropping Statute, 720 ILCS § 5/l 4 where company manual alerted employee to potential for monitoring and archiving of messages);

• Genworth Fin. Wealth Mgmt. v. McMullan, 267 F.R.D. 443, 446-48 (D. Conn. 2010) (citing cases) (defendant-former employees had to pay to create mirror images of personal computers in analogous case);

• McLaren v. Microsoft Corp., No. 05-97-00824-CV, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4103, at **9-13 (Tex. App. May 28, 1999) (dismissing cause of action for invasion of privacy when employer reviewed the contents of an employee's personal folder despite it being protected by two passwords because the folder was stored on a company-owned machine and emails sent over the company network could have been intercepted at any time);

• Garrity v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 00-12143-RWZ, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8343, at **3-7 (D. Mass. May 7, 2002) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in work email even in the absence of a company email policy when employee knows defendant had the ability to look at email on the company's intranet system).

In fact, any access by Camera of either the laptop or the hard drive, after she was

terminated on May 17, 2010, whether to clean them up or otherwise, was unauthorized

and in violation of the law. Deloitte & Touche LLP v. Carlson, No. 11 C 327, 2011 U.S,

Dist. LEXIS 77388, at **9-10 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 28, 2011) (complaint sufficiently alleged

violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act where employees destroyed and erased

hard drives on company-owned laptops before returning same). The following cases in

the criminal context also support BWC's contention that Camera has no expectation of

privacy with respect to the contents of the hard drive she has retained without

authorization:

• US v. Caymen, 404 F.3d 1196, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2005) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in contents of computers the person has stolen or obtained by fraud);

3

• U.S. v. Lyons, 992 F. 2d 1029, 1031-32 (10th Cir. 1993) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in a stolen hard drive);

• U.S. v. Wong, 334 F. 3d 831, 839 (9th Cir. 2003) (defendant had no standing to challenge search of former employer's laptop computer);

• U.S. v. Bailey, 272 F. Supp. 2d 822, 835-37 (D. Neb. 2003) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in work computer owned by employee's company when company required employee to assent to search every time employee accessed computer).

CONCLUSION

Camera simply had no expectation of privacy in any information she caused to be

stored on the BWC hard drive at issue and she caused an inoperable computer to be

returned to BWC after having that laptop and her work phone "cleaned up," which

clearly raises the possibility of spoliation of evidence. As such, the Court should order

the immediate return to BWC of its hard drive.

Dated: August 20, 2012

Michael P. Tomlinson Tomlinson Law Office, P.C. 8501 W. Higgins Road, Suite 420 Chicago, IL 60631 Phone: (312) 715-8770 Fax: (866) 625-7089 Firm ID No. 47166

Respectfully submitted,

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC. d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION

4

Exhibit 1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC. d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION, a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

KA THERINE CAMERA, an individual, and ) BROADBENT SELECTIONS, INC., a ) Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

) ) )

Case No. 11CH31184

Hon. Mary L. Mikva

Calendar 6

DECLARATION OF BRYCE MCNA..l\fEE

I, Bryce McNamee, under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109

of the I11inois Code of Civil Procedure, do verify and attest as follows:

1. I am the President of Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine

Collection ("BWC").

2. I am familiar with the Verified Complaint for Injunctive and Other Relief

filed in this matter.

3. I am also familiar with and responsible for forming and enforcing BWC's

policies and procedures.

4. BWC has a policy regarding computer use by employees and return of

BWC property when leaving BWC's employ.

5. This policy requires that all BWC property, including computers, phones,

hard drives, and other electronic equipment purchased by BWC or using a BWC credit

card are the property of BWC and must be returned immediately upon termination of an

employee's employment with BWC.

6. The employees of BWC, including its Regional Sales Managers, are made

aware of this policy. Specifically, Katherine Camera was made aware of this policy just

a little more than two months before her employment with BWC ended.

7. Attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A is a true and correct redacted

copy of the relevant portions of the agenda for the 2010 National Sales Meeting

("NSM"), which occurred on March 4, 2010, while Katherine Camera was still employed

byBWC.

8. Camera, along with other BWC Regional Sales Managers and employees

attended the March 4, 2010 NSM.

9. One of the line items on the March 4, 2010 NSM agenda, which was

discussed at that meeting, was company policy.

10. Among other policies I conveyed and discussed with the BWC employees

at that meeting, including Camera, was the policy that all emails, phone numbers, and

other infonnation stored on company property were owned by BWC because BWC had

purchased that company property. I further explained that all BWC computers were to be

used for company business only. I also reminded the employees of their obligation to

return all company property, including without limitation, company phones and

computers, to the company immediately upon termination of their employment and

explained that the return of devices similar to the devices provided or purchased by BWC

could not be returned as replacements for the ones purchased by the company.

11. Prior to the 2010 NSM, an employee had left BWC without properly and

timely returning her computer and phone, which prompted me to remind the employees

of the aforementioned policies at that meeting. With the exception Camera, all

2

employees who left BWC after the 2010 NSM and who had used laptops, phones, or

other equipment provided or purchased by BWC while employed at BWC, timely

returned that property upon leaving BWC's employ.

12. Attached hereto as Group Exhibit B are true and correct copies of the

receipt and BWC credit card bill relating to a hard drive Camera purchased on April 1,

2010 using BWC's credit card for the purpose of backing up her laptop, which was also

purchased by BWC for Cament to use for work purposes.

13. Upon leaving BWC's employ, Camera returned in an inope~ble condition

the BWC laptop she had used while employed by BWC and returned the BWC cell phone

she had used.

14. Camera did not return the BWC bard drive upon the termination of her

employment at BWC, despite her obligation to do so.

FURTIIER DECLARANT SA YETH NOT.

I declare under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section I -1 09 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct.

Executed on August 20, 2012.

3

1 \

Exhibit A

COLLECTIOW

Thursday March 4 2010

Boutique Wine Collection® 2010 National Sales Meeting j

9AM- Bryce opening comments 9:30AM- Jeff M- Opening Comments

BWC Growth Goals for 2010: Redacted - Pursuant to Protective Order

CONFIDENTIAL

Redacted - Pursuant to Protective Order

• Company Policy- What are our holidays?

• When talking with suppliers, always project positive image of Boutique Wine Collection. Best thing you can do!

Redacted - Pursuant to Protective Order

CONFIDENTIAL

' '

Grou)) Exhibit B

Apple Store, Mall of America

132 South Avenue

Bloomington, MN 55425

maliofamerica@apple.com

952-229-5630

www.apple.com/retail/mallofamerica

April 01, 2010 01 :26 PM

Katherine CAMERA

b.mcnarnee@att.net

DUPLICATE RECEIPT

WO My Passport for Mac 320GB V2 09

Part Number: TX406VC/A

Return Date: Apr. 15, 2010

Customer Support: 800-275-4932

Sub-Total

Tax@7.275%

Total

Amount Paid Via A mEx (A)

xxxxxxxxxxx2085

686929

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 •R007623 l 787•

http://www.apple.com/legal/sales_policies/retail.html

Tell us about your experience at the Apple Store.

Visit www.apple.com/feedback/retail.html

$ 99.95

s 99.95

s 7.27

$ 107.22 $ 107.22

BWC 006764

~ ..... ,__ f•."''·""'>·,,~·Rc:. XXXX-XXXXX" . 04/11/lU

-f

0

0

0:

' '

Exhibit 2

Re: 1oday

Redacted - Pursuant to Protective Order

From: katcamera 1@aol.com Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 12:12:27 -0400 To: <ken@kenforresterwjnes.com> Subject: Re: today

Ken,

9/19/l l 12:54 AM

CONF! OENTIAL

_Redacted - Pursuant to Protective Order

It has been a pleasure to sell your wines. I accepted a position with Broadbent Selections today! The bad news is that Sandrine already went thru my work emails & there were some correspondence between Markus & I a year or so ago about a container. I don't think that I have said anything on the email system that I haven't said to Bryce but it is a little worrisome ... Bryc:e told Troy today & Troy called me and told me about it. If Bryce thinks that I am the catalyst for his troubles he is sadly mistaken. If suppliers or employees are happy they stay but if the are not they will move on. I only worry because Bryce is lawsuit happy & I don't want to get sued by him. I have someone cleaning up all my i>ersonal items on my work phone & computer tomorrow & then I am sending Bryce his stuff. I will leave everything (files) that pertain to the job on the computer. That's all for now, and again it was a pleasure selling Ken Forrester wines!

All the best, Kat

Redacted - Pursuant to Protective Order

hnp://mall.aol.com/34122-l llJaol-6/en-us/mall/PrintMessage.asp1< BROADBENT 132

Page 1of2

Re: today 9/19/ll 12:54 AM

Redacted - Pursuant to Protective Order

http://mall.aol.com/34122- l l l / aol-6/en-us/mall/PrlntMessage.aspic BROADBENT 133 Page20

'2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney, certifies that he caused Plaintifrs Memorandum of Law

in Support of Return of Hard Drive by Defendant Camera to be served upon the following

individuals via U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, before the hour of 5:00 p.m., on August 20,

2012:

Joseph R. Marconi Victor J. Pioli Johnson & Be11, Ltd. 33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60603

~I.~_ Michael P. Tomlinson

Exhibit 2

Re: today

Redacted - Pursuant to Protective Order

From: katcamera1@aol.com Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 12:12:27 -0400 To: <ken@kenforresterwines.com> Subject: Re: today

Ken,

9/19Jll 12:54 AM

CON Ff OENTIAL

_Redacted - Pursuant to Protective Order

It has been a pleasure to sell your wines. I accepted a position with Broadbent Selections today! The bad news is that Sandrine already went lhru my work emails & there were some correspondence between Markus & I a year or so ago about a container. I don't think that I have said anything on the email system that I haven't said to Bryce but it is a little worrisome ... Bryce told Troy today & Troy called me and told me about it. If Bryce thinks that I am the catalyst for his troubles he is sadty mistaken. If suppliers or employees are happy they stay but if the are not they will move on. I only worry because Bryce is lawsuit happy & I don't want to get sued by him. I have someone cleaning up all my personal items on my work phone & computer tomonow & then I am sending Bryce his stuff. I will leave everything (files) that pertain to the job on the computer. Thafs all for now, and again it was a pleasure selling Ken Forrester wines!

All the best, Kat

Redacted - Pursuant to Protective Order

hnp://mall.aol.com/34122-l llJaol-6/en-us/rnatl/PnntMl!ssagl!.asp)( BROADBENT 132

Page I or 2

Re: today 9/ 19/l l 12:34 AM

Redacted - Pursuant to Protective Order

http:/ /mall.aol.com/34122-11 l / aol-6/en-us/ mall/PrlntMe.ssage.aspx BROADBENT 133 Pag•20

f2

Exhibit 3

STATE OF ILLINOIS SS:

COUNTY OF C 0 0 K

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC., dba BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION, A Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KATHERINE CAMERA, an Individual) and BROADBENT SELECTIONS, INC.,) a Delaware corporation, )

) Defendants. )

No. 11 CH 31184

Discovery deposition of BRYCE McNAMEE,

taken before Bernice Betts, Certified Shorthand

Reporter, pursuant to the provisions of the Code of

Civil Procedure of the State of Illinois and the

Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois thereof,

pertaining to the taking of depositions for the

purpose of discovery, at Suite 2700, 33 West Monroe

Street, Chicago, Illinois, commencing at

10:00 o'clock p.m. on the 9th day of October, 2012.

There were present at the taking of this

deposition the following counsel:

LAURA L. KOOY REPORTING, LTD. (312) 782-KOOY (5669)

1

2 4

1 APPEARANCES: 1 (witness sworn.) 2 TOMLJNSON LAW OFFICE, by 2 BRYCE McNAMEE MR. MICHAEL P. TOMLINSON and 3 MR. JOHN SLOAN 3 called as a witness herein, having been first duly

134 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2250 4 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 4 Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 715-8770 5 EXAMINATION 5 mtomlinson@tomlinson-law.com 6 BY MR. PIOLI:

appeared on behalf of the plaintiff; 7 Q. Let the record reflect this is the 6 JOHNSON & BELL, LTD., by 8 discovery deposition of Bryce McNamee, taken in the

7 MR. VICTOR J. PIOLI 9 case of Loest & McNamee, Incorporated, versus 33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700

10 Katherine camera and Broadbent Selections, Inc., 8 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 372-0770 11 Case No. 11 CH 31184, currently pending in the

9 pioliv@jbltd.com 12 Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division. appeared on behalf of the defendant.

10 13 Mr. McNamee, would you please state ALSO PRESENT: 14 and spell your name, for the record? 11

MS. KATHERINE CAMERA, Plaintiff 15 A. Bryce McNamee, that's B-r-y-c-e, 12 16 M-c-capital-N-a-m-e-e. 13 14 17 Q. Mr. McNamee, have you ever had your 15 18 deposition taken before? 16

19 A. No. 17 18 20 Q. Have you ever been involved in any 19 20

21 other litigation, besides the current litigation?

21 22 A. Yes. 22 23 Q. How many other lawsuits have you been 23

24 involved in? 24

3! 5 I

1 INDEX I 1 A. One. 2 Witness: Page

! 2 Q. Were you a party to that lawsuit?

3 BRYCE McNAMEE 4 EXAMINATION BY: 3 A. Yes. "Party" meaning, sorry?

I

5 MR. PIOLI ........................ 4 I

4 Q. You were either the plaintiff or the I MR. TOMLINSON .................. 133

!

5 defendant? 6 MR. PIOLI ...................... 138 7 6 A. Yes. 8 7 Q. And what was the nature of that 9

EXHIBITS 8 dispute?

10 9 MR. TOMLINSON: Are we talking about him Number: Marked for Id. 10 personally or BWC, the entity?

11 11 MR. PIOLI: That's a good question. 1 ······································· 31

12 2 ....................................... 73 12 BY MR. PIOLI:

3 ······································· 85 13 Q. Was it you personally, a party to the 13 4 ······································ 124 14 lawsuit? 14 15 15 A. I believe it was the entity only, but I

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 16 may be wrong about that. 16 QUESTIONS 17 Q. That's fair. What was the -- and what 17

Page Line 18 did the dispute concern? 18 19 A. Moneys from goods that were sold to my

106 14-24 20 company. 19 107 1-3 20 21 Q. And when -- you were the plaintiff or 21 22 the defendant? 22

23 A. I was the defendant. 23 24 24 Q. Who was the plaintiff?

LAURAL. KOOY REPORTING, LTD. (312) 782-KOOY (5669)

86

1 inventory of all our wines -- If all goes well with

2 my interview with Broadbent Selections and I am

3 hired I am going to try and get Pares Balta and

4 Cellar Masroig. My personal email is

5 katcameral@aol.com. Yes, this is the e-mail.

6 Q. And she states, If all goes well. So

7 she wasn't hired by Broad- -- she didn't even

8 interview with Broadbent at this point, correct?

9 A. Apparently.

10 MR. TOMLINSON: Objection. Speculation. 11 BY MR. PIOLI:

12 Q. And she says that if she -- if the

13 interview goes well and I am hired I am going to

14 try to get Pares Balta and Cellar. So that's

15 something that she's going to do in the future, 16 correct?

1 7 MR. TOMLINSON: Objection. calls for 18 speculation.

19 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. It has no --

2 O there is no timeframe as to when any discussions

21 with Broadbent Selection had started. It just

22 says, If all goes well with my interview with

2 3 Broadbent Selections. So it's prior to her

24 interview, but not to any discussions with

87

1 Broadbent.

2 BY MR. PIOLI:

3 Q. So do you have knowledge that she did

4 anything to actively recruit these suppliers away

5 from Loest & McNamee?

6 A. That's why we're in discovery.

7 Q. So as you sit here today, you don't 8 have that information?

9 A. I have the information that she wants

1 O to take them from us, our suppliers.

11 Q. But no knowledge that she actually did 12 do something?

13 A. Well, she did take Pares Balta -- or

14 she -- Broadbent did take Pares Balta.

15 Q. But that was after Katherine left,

16 correct?

1 7 A. That was after Katherine left.

18 Obviously the conversation started while she was

19 employed.

2 O Q. Turn back to Exhibit 2. Once, again,

21 that was a year before Katherine was let go, 22 correct?

23 A. Roughly, yes. A little more than a

24 year, but, yeah.

88

1 Q. And you've conducted a thorough search

2 of Katherine's e-mail for all her e-mails with

3 suppliers, correct?

4 MR. TOMLINSON: Objection. A thorough e-mai

5 with all of her e-mail in the BWC account, business

6 account or in general?

7 BY MR. PIOLI:

B Q. In the BWC account, correct?

9 A. In the BWC account, yes.

1 O Q. And then you've -- you had a copy of

11 her laptop, correct? You had her laptop?

12 A. She returned her laptop in an

13 inoperable condition.

14 Q. Who did you have look at it?

15 A. Apple.

16 Q. Who at Apple?

1 7 A. The technician at Apple.

18 Q. You don't know who?

19 A. You don't meet them. It's in a secure

2 O environment because they can't allow dust in and

21 stuff. So when computers are open, you can't have

22 dust.

2 3 Q. So Katherine returned her laptop at the

2 4 time that she was terminated, correct?

1

2

3

A. After she was terminated.

Q. How far after?

A. I believe within a week. Perhaps

4 longer, but not much longer after.

5 Q. She returned it to you?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And what did you do with it?

8 A. I tried to get it to work and it

9 wouldn't work, so I brought it to Apple.

1 o Q. Did you make a forensic image of the

11 laptop before you tried to get it to work?

12 A. I did not make a forensic image of it.

13 I brought it to Apple because it didn't work. I

89

14 went to turn it on, as anyone would do. Employees

15 were made aware that all data should be kept on the

16 computer. There was no data that was accessible on

1 7 the computer.

18 Q. So you turned on the computer, correct?

1 9 A. I tried to; it didn't turn on. It was

2 o actually returned on. Let me rephrase that and let

21 me answer that more specifically. It was returned

2 2 on, but it wouldn't operate. So it was shipped on.

2 3 Q. So you sent it to Apple, but you don't

2 4 know who at Apple looked at it?

LAURA L. KOOY REPORTING, LTD. (312) 782-KOOY (5669)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

I

901 92

A. I didn't send it to Apple. I brought 1 A. The litigation was about recovering I

it to Apple in Philadelphia. i 2 money, which is the first question I answered, I Q. Did you do anything to preserve the I 3 $104,000.

contents of the laptop when you received it? i 4 Q. But money that you owed Mr. Huber?

A. The contents. If you're referring to I 5 A. Yes. And we countersued, because we

the hard drive, the hard drive is basically the I 6 had sold about $350,000 of wine, plus we never

data that would be on the computer. They said that I 7 shipped while we had an open agreement.

the hard drive was with inoperable. It was broken. I 8 Q. Is that settlement agreement

Q. Do you have any receipts for any work I 9 confidential?

that was done by Apple? I 10 A. It is a confidential agreement, so I'm

A. I can provide them. I 11 not sure what I'm at liberty to discuss. But it

Q. What did they charge you?

I 12 has been settled.

A. It was under Apple Care. The repair 13 Q. I don't want you to violate it.

was free. I 14 Then you allege on April 30th 2010,

Q. Then you allege in paragraph 35 on 15 And despite her promise not to correspond with

May 11th 2009, Camera contacted BWC's then second! 16 suppliers, camera committed to improperly divulge

largest supplier, now former supplier, Markus Huber

I 17 BWC's inventory list to one of BWC's suppliers,

stating I know this is a Jong shot, but is it 18 Pares Balta?

possible to actually talk to you about something I I

19 A. That's in reference to Exhibit 3. I

have in mind? I don't want to discuss it on I 20 Q. And it's their inventory, correct?

e-mail. 21 A. No. It's our entire inventory.

And once again, that was with a year 22 Q. And why would it make a difference

before Ms. Camera was terminated, correct? 23 to --

A. Yes. I 24 A. Our inventory is confidential

911 93 I

Q. And do you have any idea what she's I 1 information. I referring to in that sentence? I 2 Q. I understand, but cavas Pares Balta is,

I A. I can only guess that she's referring I 3 once again, a supplier, correct?

to her e-mail she wrote two days earlier, which is I

4 A. Yes, our supplier.

that she'd like to start a company and steal all I 5 Q. They're not a competitor of yours,

our suppliers, take all our suppliers. Let me find 6 right?

the exact phraseology it was. 7 A. At that time they weren't. Now they

If I had the money I would start my 8 are.

own import business and try to steal his brands. 9 Q. And I guess we'll agree to disagree on

Q. So you believe that Ms. Camera had I I

10 that, but ...

discussions with Mr. Huber where Ms. Camera would! 11 A. (Indicating.)

start her own company and then try to get the Loest 12 Q. At the time is that something you want

McNamee brands? 13 to hide from your supplier?

A. That seems to make sense to me. 14 A. Inventory is a confidential thing that

Q. Did you ever contact Mr. Huber and ask 15 we don't share our -- we never have shared our

him about that? 16 inventory with our supplier -- with any supplier.

A. Again, it's after the relationship had 17 Q. I understand, but for lack of better

been finished. Markus and I weren't on speaking 18 phraseology your suppliers and you, you're on the

terms. We were in litigation. 19 same team, correct?

Q. What was the litigation about? 20 A. Yes.

A. The first question you asked at the 21 Q. So it's not -- it's not as if they're

beginning of the deposition. 22 going to use that information to your detriment,

Q. Right. Was that because you didn't pay 23 right, if they're your supplier?

him? 24 MR. TOMLINSON: Objection. calls for

LAURAL. KOOY REPORTING, LTD. (312) 782-KOOY (5669)

Exhibit 4

Re: hello

From: Ken Forrester <ken@kenforresterwines.com>

To: katcamera1 <katcamera1@aol.com>

Subject: Re: hello ·

Date: Fri, Jun 4, 2010 4:54 pm

Hi Kat

9/19/11 1:02 AM

CONFI OENTlAL

I had a call from Bryce and he seems to be reading your facebook I think! But he knows that we've spoken and he also b blamed me for John Toler leaving! He claims John told him that as Markus was gone if I was to leave there would be no company left, so he felt he had to go!! Have you ever heard suck crap? Its all sick, and not worth talking about! Too negative and smelly. We need to get way over this stuff. I can't wait to see Bryce at Aspen. Take care and we will see you soon. K

Take time to smell the Chenin!

From: katcamera1@aol.com Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:57:56-0400 To: <ken@kenforresterwines.com>; <anthony@kenforresterwines.com> Subject: hello

Hi Ken & Anthony,

I hope this finds you both well. One week to go until the World Cup starts ... you guys must be so excited! I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that this was my first week with Broadbent & I love it! The people are so nice & the systems that they have in place are good as well! Bartholomew is such a gentlemen and Gregg seems to have his finger on the pulse. The response I've had from my distributors (some old, some new) has been good too! My work email is: kcamera@broadbent.com & my mobile number is 773-680-8070. Skype: katherine.camera

On another note, I also want you to know that I received a threatening letter today from Bryce's lawyer about suing me & that I should cease immediately the telling of trade secrets or they will seek appropriate legal action against me including injunctive relief and a request for monetary damages!!!!! He is trying to bully or scare me. He is lawsuit happy. He owes me money (which I will never see) and I actually want nothing to do with him and his crap. Bryce also sent out a letter to the Philadelphia market telling the customers that John left without notice & that John was going on vacation(which we know is a damn lie)!

I want to tell you more but I will not in writing. That's all for now. Have a great weekend.

All the best, Kat

http;//mall.aol.com/34122-111/aol-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx Page 1of1

BROADBENT 138

I I

Group Exhibit 5

Bartholomew Broadbent CONFIDENTIAL From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Good morning,

Katherine Camera Friday, October 08, 2010 9:33 AM Gregg Perkins; Bartholomew Broadbent; Catherine Miles Tarlant info Tarlant sales sheet 12 09.pdf

I was going through my hard drive folders last night & found some interesting bits of information that I have saved on wines, DA reports, etc. I found this sell sheet we did for Tarlant & I thought you might be interested in seeing it. I also tried to send over this morning a power point presentation that I have on Pares Balta which is quite good but I believe it is too big because it will not "send". I will have to compress it for you.

Best, Kat

1 BROADBENT 1717

cl~ l>crull)IM-

C6'~ TARLANT

3 Centuries of Family Tradition In 1687, according to local records, Pierre Tarlant (1648-1744) began cultivating vineyards. This was at the time of Dom Pl!rignon. He was the first winegrower, in Gland, in the Aisne district.

In 1911, Louis Adrien Tar/ant (1B7B-1960)took part in the "Champagne Revolution" to recognize the AOC worldwide. Louis, as Mayor of Oeuilly, and his colleagues were instrumental in specifying the AOC Champagne area in 1927.

Louis with his wife Julia decided to create the first Cuvee Tarlant in 1928, "Carte Blanche".

In 2009, 3 generations live on the estate - oenologist from father to son; Georges centenarian, Jean-Mary 58 and Benoit in his 30's. Benoit is the 12th generation on the estate.

~e eRobertParker.~ Champagne Last Frontier The Wine Advocate - Antonio Ga/Joni

"This is a stunning set of new releases from Benoit Tar/ant. All of the wines show incredible purity and transparency. Although some of the Champagnes are vinified and aged in oak, none of the wines undergo malolactic fermentation. Tar/ant's back labels also happen to be among the most infonnative in Champagne, which makes the wines even more consumer-fiiendly"

~ TAR LANT ~~l·· .·. . · ---~ ~ w~ii,a;· _....._.J,,.,,;,,. __ ,,_

.f' ~:~~r·-"/·b'

TAR1:t-NT

"Tar/ant's NV Extra Brut CUVee Louis is 50% Pinot Noir, and 50% Chardonnay, vintages 1998, 1997 and 1996, fennented in oak with no malolactic fermentation. The wine captures a gorgeous balance between its mature bouquet and a level of treshness that is the result of the recent disgorgement Dried pears, apricots and smoke are just some of the nuances that come to life on the long, creamy finish. This is a harmoniou$, elegant Champagne of the highest level. 711is bottle was- disgorged in May 2009. Anticipated maturity: 2009 -2019. 93 points

"The Brut Nature Rose aro is 85% Chardonnay and 15% Pinot Noir based on the 2004 vintage with the addition of reserve wines aged in oak and bottled with no dosage. 711is beautifi.JI Champagne is first and foremost a wine that happens to have bubbles. The Brut Nature Rose Zero reveals outstanding tension, richness and depth in a powerful : expression of fruit The /11Qsculine, intense finish is certainly not for the timid, but this a gorgeous, utterly pure wine · that will come to life at the dinner tilble. 7his bottle was disgorged in December 2008 . Anticipated maturity: 20£J? - 2014 93 points

"The NV Brut Nature is equal parts ol' Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier based on the 2005 vintage with the addition of reserve wines aged In oak. Gorgeous, open aromatics meld into an expressive core of ripe yellow fruit The wine possesses dazzling intensity, clarity and detail in a generous, beautifuUy balance style. Smoke, roasted nuts and pastry develop in the glass, adding complexity on the richly textured, vivid finish. 711is bottle was disgorged in June 2009 with no dosage. Antidpated maturity: 2010 - 2020. 93 points

"The NV Brut Tradition impresses for its drinkability and the sheer pleasure it affurds. Despite being made from mostly red grapes, the wine is surprisingly nuanced, with a long, delicate finish that rounds things out in style. 7he NV Brut Tradition is 55% Pinot Noir, 45% Pinot Meunier and 10% Chardonnay, mosUy 2002 vintage with the addi­tion of reserve wines. 7his bottle was disgorged in May 2006 with 6 grams of dosage. Antidpated maturity: 2009 - 2015. 89+ points

Disco Bitch is a blend of equal parts of Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier, blended from 2005 reserve wine. Its golden rotor transitions ID the rich bouquet with scents of apple, peach and pear. In this cwee we find the freshness of the Chardonnay and the richness of the Pinots. The texture is supple and elegant It is !Tesh and aisp with some buttery and briOche notes. 7his bottle was disgorged in May 2006 with 6 grams of dosage.

I\1 For more information on Champagne Tarlant, please visit ·r\l !!!._A-~ll'lhWI .. A~~111111~"

:::.~;:~:r:::.:: ;--------------www~~·b~o~u=t~iq~u=e~w~i=ne~s=·=i"='~o __ BROADBENT 1718 . ~.~X:>':::: ~

Bartholomew Broadbent

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Gregg Perkins Wednesday, October 26, 2011 7:26 AM Bartholomew Broadbent FW: More stuff

Attachments: Spanish PL 02.01.10SP.pdf; French PL 02.01.1 OFR.pdf; South African PL 02.01.1 OSA.pdf

Gregg Perkins Broadbent Selections Vice President-Director of Sales Mobile 904.294.8463 gperkins@broadbent.com www.broadbent.com

-----Original Message----­From: Katherine Camera Sent: Fri 10/8/2010 6:56 AM To: Gregg Perkins Subject: More stuff

Gregg,

Price list from BWC.

1 BROADBENT 1721

01 January2010

SOUTH AFRICA District - Ward/Brand Vintage Varietal/Wine or 'Name' (size) case type Price/Case Volume Discount Direct Suggested

(AVAILABLE) Import Retail Klein Karoo - Calitzdorp Axe Hill 2003 Cape Vintage Port 500ml $160.69 None NIA $29.99 Cape Point Cape Point Vineyards 2008 Sauvignon Blanc 'Stonehaven' $138.00 Limited $126.00 $24.99 Cape Point Vineyards 2007 Sauvignon Blanc $204.00 Limited $180.00 $37.99 Cape Point Vineyards 2008 85% Sauvignon I 15% Semillon 'lsliedh' $269.69 Sold Out $255.69 $49.99 Cape Point Vineyards 2007 Chardonnay $216.00 Limited $196.00 $38.99 Cape Point Vineyards 2006 Semillon $217.00 Very Limited NIA $39.99 Stellenbosch - Helderberg de Trafford 2008 Chenin Blanc $157.69 None $140.69 $27.99 de Trafford 2005 Mer lot $163.69 None $150.69 $29.99 de Trafford 2004 Mer lot $163.69 None $150.69 $29.99 de Trafford 2005 Merlot/Petit Verdot 'MPV' $190.69 Very Limited NIA $34.99 de Trafford 2006 Cabernet Sauvignon $240.69 None $226.69 $44.99 de Trafford 2006 Shiraz 'Blueprint' NIA NIA $190.69 $36.99 de Trafford 2005 Shiraz 'Blueprint' $203.69 Limited NIA $36.99 de Trafford 2007 Shiraz $426.69 Limited $414.69 $79.99 de Trafford 2006 Shiraz $426.69 Very Limited $414.69 $79.99 de Trafford 2005 Chenin Blanc 'Straw Wine' 375ml $252.69 Limited $244.69 $46.99 de Trafford 2005 Red Wine 'Elevation 393' I 6 btls in wood $268.69 Limited $261.69 $97.99 de Trafford 2004 Red Wine 'Elevation 393' I 6 btls in wood $255.69 Limited $247.69 $94.99 Stellenbosch - Helderberg Ken Forrester 2009 Sauvignon Blanc NIA NIA $68.69 $14.99 Ken Forrester 2008 Sauvignon Blanc $89.69 $82.00 @ 28cs $64.67 $14.99 Ken Forrester 2009 Chenin Blanc 'Petit' $59.69 $52.69 @ 56cs $41.69 $9.99 Ken Forrester 2008 Chenin Blanc 'Petit' $56.69 $51.00 @ 56cs NIA $9.99 Ken Forrester 2009 Chenin Blanc $89.69 $82.69 @ 28cs $68.69 $14.99 Ken Forrester 2008 Chenin Blanc $88.00 $82.00 @ 28cs $64.69 $14.99

tt:i Ken Forrester 2008 Chenin Blanc 'The FMC' I 6 btls $175.69 Limited $165.69 $64.99

~ Ken Forrester 2009 Rose 'Petit' NIA NIA $41.69 $9.99

~ ~UTIQ!)E tt:i

~ ~WINE C 0 L L E C T I 0 N~

"'""'" ""' ....... _. -.....J N N

Ken Forrester 2008 Rose 'Petit' $53.33 $50.00 @ 14cs NIA $8.99 Ken Forrester 2009 Plnotage 'Petit' $56.69 $52.69 @ 56cs $41.69 $9.99 Ken Forrester 2008 Pinotage 'Petit' $56.69 $51.00 @ S6cs NIA $9.99 Ken Forrester 2008 Cabernet Sauvignon I Merlot 'Petit' $56.69 $52.69 @ 56cs $41.69 $9.99 Ken Forrester 2006 Cabernet Sauv:lgnon I Merlot 'Petit' $56.69 $50.00 @ 56cs NIA $9.99 Ken Forrester 2006 Shiraz I Grenache $115.00 $109.67 @ 14cs $96.69 $19.99 Ken Forrester 2006 Shiraz I Grenache 'The Gypsy' I 6 btls NIA NIA $165.33 $64.99 Ken Forrester 2005 Shiraz I Grenache 'The Gypsy' I 6 btls $175.69 Very Limited $165.33 $64.99 Ken Forrester 2008 Chenin Blanc 'T' (NLH) 375ml I 6 btls $151.69 Limited $144.69 $54.99 Ken Forrester 2007 Chenin Blanc 'T' (NLH) 375ml 16 btls $141.69 Very Limited NIA $49.99 Swartland - Darling Onyx 2008 Sauvignon Blanc $83.69 None $70.69 $14.99 Onyx 2007 Shiraz $106.69 $96.69 @ 28cs $82.00 $15.99 Onyx 2006 Cabernet Sauvignon $106.69 $96.69 @ 28cs $82.00 $15.99 Onyx 2006 Pinotage $106.69 None $90.69 $18.99 Onyx 2004 Kroon $129.69 None $114.00 $24.99 Onyx 2008 Chenin Blanc (NLH) 37Sml $117.69 None $107.69 $21.99 Stellenbosch - Devon Valley Meinert 2005 Mer lot $140.00 $133.33@ 14cs $119.00 $24.99 Meinert 2006 Cabernet Sauvignon $140.00 $133.33@ 14cs $119.00 $24.99 Meinert 2004 Cabernet Sauvignon I Merlot 'Devon Crest' $187.00 None NIA $34.99 Meinert 2003 Cabernet Sauvignon I Merlot 'Devon Crest' $157.00 Very Limited NIA $29.99 Meinert 2005 Red Wine 'Synchronicity' I 6 btls NIA NIA $112.69 $44.99 Meinert 2004 Red Wine 'Synchronicity' 16 btls $121.69 None NIA $44.99

Stellenbosch - Various Microclimates MR 2006 Red Wine 'de Compostella' I 6 btls $266.69 Limited NIA $99.99

MR 2005 Red Wine 'de Compostella' I 6 btls $240.00 Very Limited NIA $89.99

Paarl - Voor Paardeberg Scali 2006 Blanc $189.00 Very Limited $171.00 $34.99

Scali 2006 Pinotage $189.00 Limited $171.00 $34.99

Scali 2005 Syrah $217.00 Limited $198.00 $39.99

Various Districts and Wards

tt1 Signal Hill 2001 Straw Wine (375ml) $213.33 Very Limited NIA $39.99

~ Signal Hill 2003 Muscat d' Alexandrie 'Creme de Tete' (375ml) $160.00 Very Limited NIA $29.99

Swartland

t; ~UTIQOE

2 tt1

~ ~WINE ~ COLLECTTOW

""""" ............ _. -....) N w

to ~ ~ ~ >-1 ........ -...} N ..i;::..

Sojo 2004 Sauvignon Blanc Sojo 2004 Shiraz Contstantia and Franschhoek Vins d'Orrance 2008 Chardonnay 'Cuvee AnaYs' Stellenbosch - Helderberg Vins d'Orrance 2006 Syrah 'Cuvee Ameena' Vins d'Orrance 2005 Syrah 'Cuvee Ameena' Walker Bay Wildekrans 2007 Cabernet Franc I Merlot Wlldekrans 2007 Shiraz Wildekrans 2008 Pinotage Wildekrans 2007 Plnotage Wildekrans 2000 Bordeaux Blend 'Warrant' Wildekrans 2007 Pinotage 'Barrel Selection'

Specifics: Wines are listed by brand in suggested descending tasting order by brand All prices are FOB Philadelphia, PA or FOB Cape Town, SA DI Terms : 90 Days BIL

$53.33 $18.00@ 14cs $53.33 $48.00 @ 14cs

$170.69 $157.69@ 14cs

NIA NIA $216.69 $206.69@ 14cs

$83.00 $79.69 @ 28cs $91.00 $83.69 @ 28cs NIA NIA

$91.00 Sold Out $135.00 Very Limited $168.00 Limited

Ken Forrester Vineyards will provide 3% Discount on Pre-payment of any goods (at time BIL is cut by steamship line) DI Vintages may vary, but will be confirmed at time of purchase All cases are 12 bottle cases, unless noted otherwise

NIA $5.99 NIA $9.99

$143.69 $28.99

$192.69 $39.99 NIA $39.99

$65.69 $14.99 $69.69 $15.99 $69.69 $15.99 NIA $15.99 NIA $24.99

$154.00 $29.99

~UTIQYE c:...:..>WlNE

3

COLLECTION'" """" ............ ..

0 I January 20 I 0

FRANCE Direct Suggested Region I Brand Vintage Varietal 'Name' - Method Price/Case Import Retail Sancerre & Coteaux Charitois Alphonse Mello! 2008 Sancerre 'Les Romains' $471.69 NIA $88.99 Alphonse Mellot 2008 Sancerre 'Les Remains' I 6 bt\s NIA $227.69 $88.99 Alphonse Mellot 2008 Sancerre 'La Demoiselle' I 6 btls $235.69 $227.69 $88.99 Alphonse Mellot 2008 Sancerre 'Satellite' $525.69 NIA $94.99 Alphonse Mellot 2008 Sancerre 'Satellite' I 6 btls NIA $254.69 $94.99 Alphonse Mellot 2008 Pouilly-Fume $255.69 $224.69 $47.99 Alphonse Mellot 2007 Chardonnay 'Les Penitents' $181.69 $156.69 $33.99 Alphonse Mellot 2007 Pinot Noir 'Les Penitents' $228.69 $198.69 $42.99 Savennieres, Chaume, & Quarts de Chaume Petit Metris 2007 Savennieres 'Clos de la Marche' $176.69 $152.69 $32.99 Petit Metris 2005 Savennieres 'Clos de la Marche' $176.69 $152.69 $32.99 Petit Metris 2007 Savennieres 'Les Fougeraies' $176.69 $152.69 $32.99 Petit Metris 2005 Savennieres 'Les Fougeraies' $176.69 $152.69 $32.99 Petit Metris 2007 Chaume 'Authentique' $186.69 $170.69 $34.99 Petit Metris 2005 Chaume 'Les Tetueres' $280.69 $256.69 $49.99 Petit Metris 2007 Quarts de Chaume (500ml) $345.69 $317.69 $64.99 Languedoc-Roussil Ion Le Signal 2005 Vieilles Vignes Vins de Pays des Cotes Catalanes $196.69 NIA $34.99 Le Signal 2005 Vieilles Vignes Cotes-du-Roussillon-Villages $196.69 NIA $34.99 Alsace Rolly Gassmann 2007 PinotBlanc $149.69 $132.69 $27.99 Rolly Gassmann 2005 Auxerrois 'Moenchreben' $181.69 $164.69 $33.99 Rolly Gassmann 2007 Riesling N/A $158.69 $33.99 Rolly Gassmann 2006 Riesling $160.69 NIA $29.99 Rolly Gassmann 2007 Riesling 'Silberberg' $316.69 $296.69 $59.99

tti Rolly Gassmann 2002 Riesling 'Pflaenzerreben' $396.69 $376.69 $74.99

r5 Reily Gassmann 2000 Riesling 'Pflaenzerreben' $441.69 $421.69 $79.99

~ ~UTIQJ)E 1

~ ~WINE C 0 l l E C T I 0 N"

~ """"" ""' ..... , . ..... ......:i N Vl

Rolly Gassmann 2004 Riesling 'Kappelweg' $361.69 $335.69 $67.99 Rolly Gassmann 2002 Riesling 'Kappelweg' $361.69 $335.69 $67.99 Rolly Gassmann 2005 Muscat $239.69 $215.69 $44.99 Rolly Gassmann 2006 Muscat 'Moenchreben' $317.69 $293.69 $59.99 Rolly Gassmann 2006 Pinot Nolr $169.69 $155.69 $29.99 Rolly Gassmann 2003 Pinot Noir 'Reserve Rolly Gassmann' $569.69 $555.69 $104.99 Rolly Gassmann 2004 PinotGris $246.69 $206.69 $44.99 Rolly Gassmann 2007 Pino! Gris 'Rotleibel' $420.69 $400.69 $76.99 Rolly Gassmann 2004 Pinot Gris 'Brandhurst' $306.69 $282.69 $57.99 Rolly Gassmann 2004 Gewilrtztraminer $229.69 NIA $43.99 Rolly Gassmann 2007 Gewilrtztraminer 'Oberer Weingarten' N/A $258.69 $52.99 Rolly Gassmann 1998 Gewtlrtztraminer 'Oberer Weingarten' $282.69 NIA $52.99

Vendanges Tardives or Selection de Grains Nobles (SGN) Rolly Gassmann 1997 Riesling Pflaenzerreben VT $499.69 NIA $94.99 Rolly Gassmann 1997 Muscat 'Moenchreben' VT $869.69 $855.69 $159.99 Rolly Gassmann 2001 Pinot Gris VT $413.69 NIA $74.99 Rolly Gassmann 2002 Gewilrtztraminer 'Haguenau' VT $509.69 $489.69 $94.99 Rolly Gassmann 2000 Gewilrtztraminer 'Kappelweg' VT $533.69 $485.69 $99.99 Rolly Gassmann 1994 Gew!lrtztraminer 'Oberer Weingarten' SGN $1,440.00 NIA $269.99 Rolly Gassmann 1994 Gewilrtztraminer 'Oberer Weingarten' SGN (3 75ml) $720.00 NIA $134.99 Rolly Gassmann 1994 Gew!lrtztraminer Stegreben 'Cuvee Anne-Marie' SGN $1,254.00 $1,236.00 $234.99 Rolly Gassmann 1989 Gew!lrtztraminer SGN $1,620.00 $1,600.00 $299.99 Champagne Tarlant NV Brut 'Tradition' $266.69 $248.69 $49.99 Tarlant NV QV 'Discobitch' $426.69 $408.69 $79.99 Tarlant NV Brut 'Zero' 375ml $214.69 $206.69 $39.99 Tarlant NV Brut 'Zero' I 6btls $204.69 $191.69 $74.99 Tarlant NV Brut Rose 'Zero' I 6btls $249.69 $231.69 $89.99 Tarlant NV Cuvee Louis 'Les Crayons' I 6blts $327.69 $296.69 $119.99 Tarlant 1998 Prestige Vintage Extra Brut I 6btls NIA $264.69 $99.99 Tarlant 1998 Prestige Vintage Rose Extra Brut I 6btls NIA $279.69 $104.99

t:C Tarlant 2000 La Vigne d'Antan Extra Brut Non Greffee Chardonnay NIA $410.69 $149.99

~ Ilot des Sables' Extra Brut I 6btls

~UTIQ[JE 2

~ t:C

~ ~WINE C 0 L L E C T I 0 N. """'' """' .......

~ ....... --.l N 0--

~

~ z ........

;:; '..J

Tarlant

Specifics:

1999 La Vigne d'Or 'Blanc de Meuniers Extra Brut Pierre de Bellevue' Extra Brut I 6btls

Wines are listed by brand in suggested descending tasting order

NIA $460.69

All prices are FOB Philadelphia, PA or Direct Import (DI) France (ex-cellar); and can be co-loaded with Dr. Hermann DI Terms : 90 Days B/L SKUs in Bold have been selected as Core wines; All cases are 12 bottle cases

$174.99

Please inquire about other SKUs and/or older vintages; Rolly Gassmann keeps reserve stocks of many older vintages, which are not listed above

~ BOUTIQ11E c:...:..>WINE COLLECTION" ........ ""' .......

3

01 January 2010

SPAIN Varietal(s) 'Name' I Style of Wine I No. Bottles/Case Single Volume Direct Suggested

Vino de la Tierra Castilla y Leon Case Discount Import Retail

Al ala 2006 Prieto Picudo I Tempranlllo I Merlot 'Alala' $74.00 $66.69 @ S6cs $52.69 $10.99

Priorat

Ardevol 2007 Red Wine 'Anjoll' $142.69 $133.69@ 14cs $118.69 $24.99

Ardevol 2006 Red Wine 'Coma d'en Romeu' NIA NIA $169.69 $33.99

Ardevol 2005 Red Wine 'Coma d'en Romeu' $192.00 $180.00@ 14cs $166.00 $32.99

Ardevol 2000 Red Wine 'Coma d'en Romeu' in wood I 6 btl $133.33 $130.33@ 14cs NIA $49.99

Ardevol 2005 Red Wine 'Terra d'hom' in wood• $384.00 Limited $370.00 $69.99

Ardevol 2004 Red Wine 'Terra d'hom' in wood• $384.00 Very Limited NIA $69.99

Ardevol 2003 Red Wine 'Terra d'hom' in wood• $299.69 Limited NIA $54.99

Ardevol 2001 Red Wine 'Terra d'hom' in wood I 6 btl $159.69 $149.69@ 14cs NIA $54.99

Somontano Castillo de Monesma 2007 Cabernet Sauvlgnon I Merlot I Syrah $66.69 $52.69 @ 28cs $39.69 $9.99

Castillo de Monesma 2001 Cabernet Sauvignon Crianza $118.00 $106.69@ 14cs $96.69 $19.99

Bicrzo

Castro Ventosa 2007 Mencia 'El Castro de Valtullle' Joven $88.69 $81.69 @ 28cs $66.69 $14.99

Castro Ventosa 2005 Mencia 'EI Castro de Valtuille' $186.69 None NIA $34.99

Castro Ventosa 2005 Mencia 'Valtuille' Cepas Centenaries in wood/ 6btl $192.00 Limited $184.69 $69.99

Montsant

Celler el Masroig 2008 Garnatxa Blanca 'Les Sorts' Blanc $139.69 $133.69@ 14cs $119.69 $24.99

Celler el Masroig 2007 Garnatxa Blanca 'Les Sorts' Blanc $139.69 $133.69 @ 14cs NIA $24.99

Celler el Masrolg 2008 Garnatxa I Carlftena 'Les Sorts' Rosat $80.00 $74.00 @28cs NIA $13.99

Celler el Masroig 2008 Tempranillo I Cariftena I Gamatxa 'Les Sorts' Jove $89.69 $83.69@ 14cs $69.69 $14.99

Celler el Masroig 2007 Tempranillo I Carii\ena I Gamatxa 'Les Sorts' Jove $80.00 $74.00@ 14cs NIA $13.99

Celler el Masroig 2008 Cariilena I Garnatxa 'Sola Fred' $66.69 $60.69 @ 56cs $46.69 $9.99

Celler el Masroig 2005 Gamatxa I Carlllena I Tempranlllo & Cab 'Castell de Jes Plnyeres' $96.69 $90.69 @ 28cs $76.69 $16.99

Celler el Masroig 2004 Syrah I Cariiiena 'Sycar' $133.69 None NIA $24.99

Celler el Masroig 2005 Gamatxa I Cariftena I Cabernet 'Les Sorts' Vinyes Velles NIA NIA $184.69 $34.99

tP Cell er el Masroig 2004 Gamatxal Carillena I Cabernet 'Les Sorts' Vinyes Velles $214.00 $198.69@ 14cs $184.69 $34.99

~ Celler el Masroig 2005 Cariflena I Garnatxa I Cabernet Sauvignon 'Mas•Roig' in wood• NIA NIA $330.69 $64.99

Ccllcr el Masroig 2003 Carii\ene I Garnatxa I Cabernet Seuvignon 'Mas•Roig' in wood• $356.69 $346.69 @ 7cs $330.69 $64.99

~ tP ~ ~ BOUTIQ\.)E ,...., c...:.>WlNE

COLLECTIOW - ••11<1<1 I'""'''"'"

.....:i N 00

Priorat

Clos Mogador 2006 Cariiiena I Garnatxa I Syrah 'Manyetes' in wood " $616.69 None $599.69 $115.00 Clos Mogador 2005 Cariilena I Garnatxa I Syrah 'Manyetes' in wood * $616.69 Limited NIA $115.00 Clos Mogador 2004 Carmena I Gamatxa I Syrah 'Manyetes' in wood * $613.69 Limited NIA $110.00 Clos Mogador 2003 Carii'lena I Garnatxa I Syrab 'Manyetes' in wood " $513.69 Very Limited NIA $94.99 Clos Mogador 2002 Carii'lena I Garnatxa I Syrah 'Manyetes' in wood "' $480.69 Limited NIA $90.00 Clos Mogador Olive Oil (500ml I indivdually packed) $160.69 None $148.69 NIA Ribera del Jucar

Elvi Wines 2005 Tempranlllo I Cabernet Sauvignon I Merlot 'Albak' $96.00 84.00@l4cs $70.00 $15.99

Elvi Wines 2005 Bobal I Tempranillo I Cabernet Sauvignon I Merlo! 'Furia' $125.00 $117.00@ 14cs $103.00 $21.99

Elvi Wines 2005 Bobal I Syrah I Cabernet Sauvignon I Merlot 'Adar' $181.33 None $164.33 $33.99 Priorat

Gratavinum 2006 Red Wine '27tr'* $282.00 Limited $265.00 $49.99

Gratavinum 2006 Red Wine 'GV5'" $577.00 Sold Out NIA $99.99

Conca de Barbera

Josep Foraster 2004 Cabernet Sauvignon I Tempranillo Collita $36.00 None NIA $9.99

Josep Foraster 2002 Cabernet Sauvignon I Tempranillo Crianya $50.00 None NIA $17.99

Penedes

Pares Balta NV Brut $96.69 S88.00 @ 28cs $69.69 $15.99

Pares Balta 2006 Blanc de Noir 'Blanca Cusine' I 6btl $126.69 Limited $112.69 $46.99

Pares Balta NV Blanc de Blancs 'Cuvee de Carol' I 6btl $204.00 Very Limited $190.00 $74.99

Pares Balta 2009 Macabeo I Xarel.lo I PareUada 'Blanc de Pacs' $74.69 $69.69 @ 28cs $55.69 $12.99

Pares Balta 2008 Xarel.lo 'Calcarl' $106.69 None $92.69 $18.99

Pares Balta 2004 Xarel.lo 'Electio' In wood " $293.69 Very Limited NIA $54.99

Pares Balta 2008 Rose (Cabernet Sauvignon I Merlo!) 'Ros de Pacs' $69.69 SS8.69 @ 14cs NIA $10.99

Pares Balta 2007 Rose (Shiraz) 'Radix' " NIA Very Limited $199.96 $39.99

Pares Balta 2007 Cabernet Sauvignon I Garnacha 'Mas Petit' $74.69 $69.69 @ 28cs $55.69 $12.99

Pares Balta 2006 Bordeaux Blend 'Mas Elena' $106.69 None $92.69 $18.99

Pares Balta 2005 Bordeaux Blend 'Mas Elena' $106.69 None NIA $18.99

Pares Balta 2006 Garnatxa 'Hisenda Mire!' " $305.69 $293.69@ 7cs $279.69 $54.99

Pares Balta 2001 Syrah 'Marta de Balta' " $533.69 Very Limited NIA $99.99

Pares Balta 2003 Tempranillo I Merlot I Cabernet Franc I Syrah 'Absis' in wood* $712.69 Very Limited $698.69 $130.00

tc

~ ~ I"UUTl®E

2

tT1

~ ~WINE COLLECTION· '""'"" "'" ....... -"'-l

N \0

cc

~ g ,._. -...) w 0

Specifics:

Wines are listed by brand in suggested descending tasting order by brand All prices are FOB Philadelphia, PA or Direct Import (DI) Spain (ex-cellar; multiple Natural Ports)

DI Terms : 90 Days (ex-cellar)

Pares Balta will provide 3% Discount on Pre-payment of any goods (at time BIL is cut by steamship line)

DI Vintages may vary, but will be confirmed at time of purchase All cases are 12 bottle cases, unless noted otherwise; some may be strapped together ex-PHL •

UR is Price Upon Request

~UTIOJ)E ~W!NTEION" ~.? ~.L .. E .~ ........ ..

3

Bartholomew Broadbent

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Gregg Perkins Broadbent Selections

Gregg Perkins Wednesday, October 26, 2011 7:27 AM Bartholomew Broadbent FW: Pares Balta

Vice President-Director of Sales Mobile 904.294.8463 gperkins@broadbent.com www.broadbent.com

-----Original Message----­From: Katherine Camera Sent: Wed 12/29/2010 11:21 AM To: Gregg Perkins Subject: Pares Balta

Hi Gregg,

Here is the info so far on Pares Balta:

CONFIDENTIAL

1. Iowa: Okoboji Wine Co. - Okoboji brought some items in from Boutique in April of 2010. I did a sales meeting & tasting with their team the second week of April. I would like to keep the wines with Okoboji 2. Idaho: I do not know Bottleneck & would like to at least have a conversation with them. 3. IL./Pure: Had a long conversation with Troy today & set up a meeting with Troy on Jan.3rd. Wine Cru is interested in Pares Balta as well. 4. IN/Crossroads: I reached out to Bill today and they want to keep Pares Balta -they have only 3-4 wines from Pares Balta. Bill & I spoke about other wines in our portfolio & we are to speak next week about Pares Balta & Broadbent Selections. 5. MI/Imperial : Norm Decourcey had Pares Balta when he owned Estate Wines, Imperial bought them almost 2 years ago. I would like to switch this to Veritas. 6. MN/Quality: Quality didn 1 t do a great job with Pares Balta in the past. I am looking at something right now & will know more tomorrow. 7. MO/Garco: I have a call into Mike Cohen today about Pares Balta 8. Ohio: Cutting Edge does not have Pares Balta- They have Jorge wines. Will need to find a new wholesaler. 9. Kentucky: Was not Cutting Edge - I know that Jeff Morgenthal of Boutique tried to get in with Bryant but was unable to. I have a call into Steve Woods about Pares Balta 10. WI/Wine Concepts: Will move to Prestige Wines.

Katherine

1 BROADBENT 1731

I \

Exhibit 6

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DMSION

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC. d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION, a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

KA THERINE CAMERA, an individual, and ) BROADBENT SELECTIONS, INC., a ) Delaware corporation, )

Defendants. ) )

Case No. 11CH31184

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT CAMERA

Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 214, Plaintiff Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a

Boutique Wine Collection ("BWC") hereby serves the below Requests for Production of

Documents upon Defendant Katherine Camera, responses and documents in response to which

are to be produced within twenty-eight (28) days of service.

INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS

(a) "Plaintiff'' or "BWC" means Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection.

(b) "Camera," "Defendant," "you," or "yours" means Defendant Katherine Camera.

( c) "Broadbent" means Defendant Broadbent Selections, Inc.

( d) "Document" or "Documents" when used herein, is used with the same meaning as the

term is defined in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(b)(l), and includes, but not limited to, any

written, printed, typed or other written, printed, typed or other graphic matter of any kind and all

mechanical or electronic sound recordings or transcripts thereof, in your possession or control

known by you to exist (and shall also mean all copies of document by whatever means made),

including but not limited to papers, letters, contracts, correspondence ,telegrams, interoffice

communications, memoranda, notes, notations, notebooks, reports, records, schedules, telexes,

tables, bills, remittances, invoices, cancelled checks, ledger sheets, charts, publications, and any

drafts, revisions or amendments of the above.

(e) "Relate(s) to," "related to" or "relating to" means to refer to, reflect, concern, pertain to

or in any manner be connected with the matter discussed.

(f) "Supplier" or "Suppliers" means any and all of BWC's suppliers and their respective

employees, agents, and/or representatives, including but not limited to, Ken Forrester Vineyards

from South Africa, Markus Huber GmbH & Co KG from Austria, Weingnut Dr. Hermann from

Germany, Yins d'Orrance from South Africa, and Pares Balta from Spain.

(g) "Lawsuit" means Loest & McNamee dlb!a Boutique Wine Collection v. Katherine

Camera and Broadbent Selections, Inc., Case No. 11 CH 31184, pending in the Circuit Court of

Cook County, Illinois.

(h) "Verified Complaint" means the Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

filed in the Lawsuit.

(i) If you withhold information based upon any privilege claim, then state the exact nature of

the privilege and support such claim with a description of the nature of information or contents

of the documents you are withholding.

G) If you claim that you cannot produce or make available for inspection and copying a

requested document or tangible thing on the basis that it no longer exists for any reason,

including without limitation, because it was destroyed, lost, or discarded, then specify the (i) the

reason it no longer exists, (ii) the date on which it was destroyed, lost, discarded, or otherwise

ceased to exist, (ii) the method of destruction or other manner in which it came to no longer exist

(iii) who destroyed, lost, discarded, or otherwise caused it to no longer exist, including the name,

2

address, and telephone number of, or other method of contacting, any such person, and, if

destroyed or otherwise intentionally caused to no longer exist (iv) the reason why it destroyed or

caused to no longer exist.

REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1. Make available for inspection and copying any computer hard drives and external

storage media or device used or accessed by you, including software operating systems and any

codes in memory necessary to make and/or access encrypted data, including all documents and

e-mail, readable on its own equipment, and which contain information relating to BWC and/or

the allegations of the Verified Complaint, including but not limited to, the external hard drive

referenced in Verified Complaint Paragraph 49.

2. Exact copies of all electronic files containing information relating to the

allegations in the Verified Complaint stored on any computer, external computer hard drives,

and/or any other external electronic or web-based storage media obtained or kept by Camera.

3. All documents relating to or comprising communications relating to this Lawsuit

and/or the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint between Broadbent and any Suppliers

both prior to and after Defendant Camera's employment with BWC terminated.

4. All e-mails and other electronic documents or communications referring or related

to BWC and the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint from (i) non-BWC e-mail

accounts, including without limitation, katcameral@aol.com, (ii) Defendant Camera's

Facebook@ account, including without limitation, Facebook posts, status messages and messages

between Camera and BWC's former and current Suppliers or visible to such Suppliers as a result

of having been posted on Facebook®, including but not limited to those referenced in Compl. ifif

38 and 42, and (iii) any Linkedln® or other social or business media account.

3

5. All documents relating to or comprising BWC's business records, notes, or

reports, including but not limited to, (i) market research, information regarding inventory levels

and the brands BWC imported, (ii) research comparisons among suppliers, (iii) information

pertaining to BWC's service initiatives and strategies, (iv) compilations of BWC's supplier and

distributor identities, needs, habits, and preferences, (v) BWC's supplier contracts, and/or the

terms and conditions thereof, and (vi) BWC's distributor contracts, and/or the terms and

conditions thereof.

6. Any and all documents related to BWC trade secrets, proprietary information, and

other confidential information.

7. Documents sufficient to show each date and time on which you accessed, viewed,

altered, updated, transferred, downloaded, uploaded, or otherwise handled any business record or

document produced in response to Request Nos. 5 and 6, whether in hard copy or electronic

format, including following your termination from BWC.

8. All business records and other documents of BWC that you uploaded or

transferred from any BWC computer network or system to any online storage, sharing or other

similar application or device, at any time.

9. All documents relating or referring to BWC suppliers (whether actual, past or

prospective) and distributors/wholesalers (whether actual, past or prospective).

10. All documents relating to Camera planning or intending to cease being employed

by BWC and becoming employed by Broadbent.

11. All documents relating to your attempts to obtain BWC's former or current

Suppliers as suppliers for Broadbent.

12. All written agreements and other documents containing, summarizing, or

4

referring to the terms and conditions of the business relationship between Camera and

Broadbent, including without limitation, any employment agreement.

13. Copies of your personal phone records from the time period beginning February

2008 to the present indicating or demonstrating contact between Camera and any of BWC's

current and former Suppliers.

14. Copies of your business phone records from the time period beginning June 1,

2010 to the present indicating or demonstrating contact between Camera and any of BWC's

current and former Suppliers.

15. All documents ·relating to or comprising communications, meetings, or

transactions between Defendants and Ken Forrester, Markus Huber, Vins d'Orrance, Pares Balta,

and Dr. Hermann.

16. All documents or tangible things comprising or relating to property owned or

purchased by BWC that remains in Camera's possession.

17. All documents, including communications with BWC's former Suppliers,

regarding the reason(s) for ceasing to use BWC as their importer and/or switching to Broadbent

as their importer.

18. All documents relating to or comprising communications between Camera and

former BWC Suppliers from the date each Supplier ceased using BWC as its importer until the

present.

19. All documents relating to BWC's payment to former Suppliers that ceased using

BWC as their impmter from January 1, 2008 to present.

20. All documents relating to your efforts to seek and obtain other employment while

still employed by BWC.

5

21. All documents (i) relating to the reasons why the "someone" "reached out for

you" as referenced in the e-mail chain in Exhibit 6 to the Verified Complaint and (ii) showing

the identity of that person.

22. All documents relating to or comprising any agreement between BWC and

Camera pursuant to which BWC agreed to pay for the expense of shipping the laptop computer

Camera used while she was an employee ofBWC back to BWC.

23. All documents showing the expense incurred by Camera in shipping the laptop

computer Camera used while she was an employee ofBWC back to BWC.

24. All documents used, reviewed, consulted, and/or relied upon in answering BWC's

First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Camera.

25. All documents and correspondence which refer, reflect or relate to any of the

allegations made or any of the affirmative defenses raised in the Lawsuit which have not

otherwise been requested herein.

26. An affidavit of completeness with respect to the documents requested herein,

pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 214.

Dated: October 14, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC. d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION

By:____.~'----__ /(_. _-t2_~r;:2~_·_

Michael P. Tomlinson Tomlinson Law Office, P.C. 134 N. LaSalle Street, Ste. 2250 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 715-8770 Fax: (312) 726-8707 Firm ID No. 47166

One of its attorneys

6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney, ce1tifies that on October 14, 2011, he caused the foregoing

Plaintiff's First Request For Production of Documents to Defendant Katherine Camera to

be served upon the attomey(s) of record below by placing it in the U.S. Mail at 134 N. LaSalle

Street, Chicago, Illinois, with first class postage pre-paid, at or before the hour of 5:00 p.m.

Joseph R. Marconi Reiko Satoh Johnson & Bell, Ltd. 33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60603

Michael P. Tomlinson

' '

Exhibit 7

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC., d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION, a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

KA THERINE CAMERA, an individual and ) BROADBENT SELECTIONS, JNC., a ) Delaware corporation, )

Defendants. ) )

No. 11CH31184

DEFENDANT CAMERA'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTiON OF DOCUMENTS

Defendant KA THERJNE CAMERA (hereinafter "Defendant"), hereby answers the first

request for production of documents of Plaintiff LO EST & McNAMEE, INC. d/b/a BOUTIQUE

WINE COLLECTION (hereinafter "Plaintiff'') as follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

In addition to the specific objections set forth for each individual request, Defendant

hereby sets forth his general objections to Plaintiff's first request for document production.

These objections are hereby incorporated into each specific response.

1. Defendant objects to the discovery requests to the extent they purport to impose

requirements, obligations, and duties beyond, or different from, those imposed by the Illinois

Supreme Court Rules or Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Defendant objects to the discovery requests to the extent that they seek

information or documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

1 .

admissible evidence. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission by Defendant regarding

the admissibility or relevance of any fact or document.

3. Defendant objects to the discovery requests to the extent they call for disclosure

of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or

any other applicable privileges or doctrines. Inadvertent disclosure of privileged or otherwise

objectionable information shall not be deemed a waiver of any such privilege, immunity and/or

objection.

4. Defendant objects to the discovery requests to the extent they seek information

not in Defendant's possession, custody or control. In particular, Defendant objects to the

discovery that requests information not within Defendant's knowledge and, instead, requests

information within the knowledge of a third party. Any responses to the individual requests are

based solely on information in Defendant's current possession.

5. Defendant objects to the discovery requests to the extent they seek information

that is irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome, confusing, vague, ambiguous and/or

unlimited in time and scope.

6. Defendant objects to the discovery requests to the extent they are better suited as

the subject of deposition testimony.

7. Defendant's investigation is ongoing, and they reserve the right to supplement or

amend their answers and objections at any time prior to hearing or as otherwise permitted by

applicable rules, law and/or order of the court.

8. Defendant reserves the right to object to the admission into evidence of any or all

information produced in response to these requests in any pending or future proceeding on any

2

grounds provided by law. Defendant further reserves the right to interpose additional objections

and to object to any additional discovery requests directed to them.

9. Defendant expressly object to all discovery requests to the extent that they attempt

to assume the truth of disputed facts. Unless expressly stated, any disclosure by Defendant to a

given request should not be construed as an admission of a disputed fact contained within the

request.

10. Defendant objects to all discovery requests to the extent they seek documents or

information that constitute trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information.

11. Defendant objects to all discovery requests to the extent that they seek to require

Defendant to provide information and/or documents other than that which may be obtained

through a reasonably diligent search of his records.

12. Defendant objects to these discovery requests to the extent that they seek to

require Defendant to respond to questions or to identify or ·produce documents relating to times,

events, and other things beyond the subject matter of the Complaint.

13. Defendant objects to these discovery requests on the grounds that they are vague

and lack particularity. Defendant cannot determine the precise nature of the information sought

and, therefore, cannot respond without an unreasonable risk of inadvertently providing a

misleading, confusing, inaccurate or incomplete response.

14. Defendant objects generally to Plaintiff's requests as seeking documents already

in Plaintiff's possession, custody or control and/or documents readily available to the public.

REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

I. Make available for inspection and copying any computer hard drives and external storage media or device used or accessed by you, including software operating systems and any codes in memory necessary to make and/or access encrypted data, including all documents and

3

e-mail, readable in its own equipment, and which contain information relating to BWC and/or the allegations of the Verified Complaint, including but not limited to, the external hard drive referenced in Verified Complaint Paragraph 49.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is unduly

burdensome, overly broad, and vague. Subject to and without waiving these objections,

Defendant will make the hard drive referenced in Paragraph 49 of the Verified Complaint

for inspection at a mutually convenient date and time.

2. Exact copies of all electronic files containing. information relating to the allegations in the Verified Complaint stored on any computer, external computer hard drives, and/or any other external electronic or web-based storage media obtained or kept by Camera.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is overly

broad, unduly burdensome, and unlimited in time· and scope. Subject to and without

waiving these objections, see documentation produced in response to requests to produce.

3. All documents relating to or comprising communications relating to this Lawsuit and/or the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint between Broadbent and any Suppliers both prior to and after Defendant Camera's employment with BWC terminated.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is overly

broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and irrelevant. Subject to and without waiving these

objections, defendant does not have any knowledge regarding communications that

Broadbent may have had with suppliers prior to defendant beginning employment with

Broadbent. See documentation produced in response to requests to produce. Investigation

continues. Defendant expressly reserves the right to supplement her response to this

request to produce

4. All e-mails and other electronic documents or communications referring or related to BWC and the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint from (i) non-BWC e-mail accounts, including without limitation, katcamerl@aol.com, (ii) Defendant Camera's Facebook® account, including without limitation, Facebook posts, status message and messages between Camera and BWCs former and current Suppliers or visible to such Suppliers as a result

4

of having been posted on Facebook®, including but not limited to those referenced in Comp I. iii! 38 and 42, and (iii) any Linkedln® or other social or business media account.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is overly

broad, unduly burdensome, unlimited in time and scope and irrelevant. Subject to and

without waiving these objections, see documentation produced in response to requests to

produce. Investigation continues. Defendant expressly reserves the right to supplement

her response to this request to produce.

5. All documents relating to or compnsmg BWC's business records, notes, or reports, including but not limited to, (i) market research, information regarding inventory levels and the brands BWC imported, (ii) research comparisons among suppliers, (iii) information pertaining to BWC's service initiatives and strategies, (iv) compilations of BWC's supplier and distributor identities, needs, habits, and preferences, (v) BWC's supplier contracts, and/or the terms and conditions thereof, and (vi) BWC's distributor contracts, and/or the terms and conditions thereof.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is overly

broad, unlimited in time and scope, vague and irrelevant. Subject to and without waiving

these objections, see documentation produced in response to requests to produce.

6. Any and all documents related to BWC trade secrets, proprietary information, and other confidential information.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is vague,

overly broad, unlimited in time and scope, and irrelevant. Subject to and without waiving

this information, none.

7. Documents sufficient to show each date and time on which you accessed, viewed, altered, updated, transferred, downloaded, uploaded, or otherwise handled any business record or document produced in response to Request Nos. 5 and 6, whether in hard copy or electronic format, including following your termination from BWC.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is vague,

unduly burdensome, and seeks information that Plaintiff has access to. Subject to and

without waiving these objections, none.

5

8. All business records and other documents of BWC that you uploaded or transferred from any BWC computer network or system to any online storage, sharing or other similar application or device, at any time.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is vague,

unduly burdensome, and seeks information that Plaintiff has access to. Subject to and

without waiving these objections, see documents produced in response to requests to

produce.

9. All documents relating or referring to BWC suppliers (whether actual, past or prospective) and distributors/wholesalers (whether actual, past or prospective).

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is unduly

burdensome, . overly broad, unlimited in time and scope and irrelevant. Subject to and

without waiving these objections, Defendant is not aware of all of BWC's past, present and

prospective suppliers and distributors and wholesalers. See documents produced in

response to requests to produce. Investigation continues. Defendant expressly reserves the

right to supplement her response to this request to produce.

10. All documents relating to Camera planning or intending to cease being employed by BWC and becoming employed by Broadbent.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is vague.

Subject to and without waiving this objection, see documents produced in response to

requests to produce.

11. All documents relating to your attempts to obtain BWC's former or current Suppliers as suppliers for Broadbent.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is vague.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, BWC's former suppliers initiated contact

with defendant to become a supplier for Broadbent. See documents produced in response

to requests to produce.

6

12. All written agreements and other documents containing, swnmanzmg, or referring to the terms and conditions of the business relationship between Camera and Broadbent, including without limitation, any employment agreement.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is

irrelevant. Subject to and without waiving this objection, see documents produced in

response to requests to produce.

13. Copies of your personal phone records from the time period beginning February 2008 to present indicating or demonstrating contact between Camera and any of BWC's current and form.er Suppliers.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is unduly

burdensome and overly broad. Subject to and without waiving these objections, defendant

does not have possession of phone records with call details during that time. The phone

records that Defendant has are in summary format, without a listing of calls made during a

time period. Defendant's personal cellular phone number through AT&T was 773-680-

8070 from February 2008 to present. Defendant's land line through AT&T was 773-252-

3553 from February 2008 to December 2008/January 2009. At that time, Defendant

switched her land line telephone to Comcast, keeping the same number, 773-252-3553.

14. Copies of your business phone records from the time period beginning June 1, 2010 to the present indicating or demonstrating contact between Camera and any of BWC's current or form.er Suppliers.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is unduly

burdensome and overly broad. Subject to and without waiving these objections, see

documents produced in response to requests to produce.

15. All documents relating to or comprising communications, meetings, or transactions between Defendants and Ken Forrester, Markus Huber, Vins d'Orrance, Pares Balta, and Dr. Hermann.

7

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is unduly

burdensome, overly broad, unlimited in time and scope, and vague. Subject to and without

waiving these objections, see documents produced in response to requests to produce.

16. All documents or tangible things comprising or relating to property owned or purchased by BWC that remains in Camera's possession.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is vague

and unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving these objections, none.

17. All documents, including communications with BWC's former Suppliers, regarding the reason(s) for ceasing to use BWC as their importer and/or switching to Broadbent as their importer.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is vague

and seeks documentation that is not in defendant's possession, custody or control. Subject

to and without waiving these objections, see documents produced in response to request to

produce.

18. All documents relating to or comprising communication between Camera and former BWC Suppliers from the date each Supplier ceased using BWC as its importer until the present.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is unduly

burdensome, overly broad and seeks documentation that is not in defendant's possession,

custody or control. Subject to and without waiving these objections, see documents

produced in response to requests to produce.

19. All documents relating to BWC's payment to former Suppliers that ceased using BWC as their importer from January 1, 2008 to present.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is unduly

burdensome and overly broad. Subject to and without waiving these objections, see

documents produced in response to requests to produce.

8

20. All documents relating to your efforts to seek and obtain other employment while still employed by BWC.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is vague

and duplicative. Subject to and without waiving these objections, see documents produced

in response to requests to produce.

21. All documents (i) relating to the reasons why the "someone reached out for you" as referenced in the e-mail chain in Exhibit 6 to the Verified Complaint and (ii) showing the identity of that person.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is unduly

burdensome. Subject to and without waiving these objections, see documents produced in

response to requests to produce.

22. All documents relating to or compnsmg any agreement between BWC and Camera pursuant to which BWC agreed to pay for the expense of shipping the laptop computer Camera used while she was an employee of BWC back to BWC.

Response: Defendant objects to this request for production because it is unduly

burdensome. Subject to and without waiving these objections, see documents produced in

response to requests to produce.

23. All documents showing the expense incurred by Camera in shipping the laptop computer Camera used while she was an employee of BWC back to BWC.

Response: See documents produced in response to requests to produce.

24. All documents used, reviewed, consulted, and/or relied upon in answering BWC's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Camera.

Response: See documents produced in response to requests to produce.

25. All docwnents and correspondence which refer, reflect or relate to any of the allegations made or any of the affirmative defenses raised in the Lawsuit, which have not otherwise been requested herein.

Response: None.

9

26. An affidavit of completeness with respect to the documents requested herein, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 214.

Response: Defendant is unable to produce an affidavit of completeness at this

time because its investigation continues on several categories of documents. Defendant will

provide an affidavit of completeness at a later date.

Joseph Marconi Reiko Satoh JOHNSON & BELL, LTD. Attorneys for Plaintiff 33 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60603 312-3 72-0770 Firm I.D. 06347 #2853843

Respectfully submitted,

Defendant KATHERINE CAMERA

By: fJi!Ste&afA= / One of her attorneys

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, on oath states she served Defendant Katherine Camera's Responses To Plaintiff Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection's First Request for Production of Documents to:

lvfichaelP.Torrtlinson Tomlinson Law Office, P.C. 134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2250 Chicago, IL 60602

via first class mail before 5:00 p.m. on November 21, 2011from33 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603.

[x] Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to ILL.REV.STAT. CHAP. 110§1-109, I certify that the statements set forth herein are true and correct.

11

' \

Exhibit 8

\

08/22/2012 13:52 13125035795 MIKVA PAGE 02/03

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHANCERY DIVISION

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC. d/b/a

BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION, a Delaware corporation,

No. 11CH31184

Judge Mary L. Mikva

Calendar 6 Plaintiff,

v. KATHERINE CAMERA, an individual, and

BROADBENT SELECTIONS, INC.,

a Delaware corporation,

Defendants

ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Access, Inspect and Copy a

hard drive that was purchased by Plaintiff for Defendant Katherine Camera to utilize at work

and which she still has in her possession. For the reasons that follow and with. the limitations

set forth herein, Plaintiffs Motion is granted.

1. On August 15, 2012, the Court issued an order relative to this Motion. That Order

required both Plaintiff and Defendants to submit memoranda oflaw by August 20, 2012.

The Court received Plaintiffs Memorandum on that date. The Court did not receive any

Mem.oranduru from Defendant tmtil August 22, 2012, and that was only after the Court's

law clerk contacted counsel for the Defendants.

2. All parties cited the same case law. See, e.g.. Mui ck v. Gelnayre Electronics, 280 F .3d

741 (7th Ci..r. 2002). As that law makes clear, whether or not a company employee has

any expectation of privacy relative to the use of a compllter or hard drive that has been

furnished to the employee by an employer depends upon the company's stated policies.

A company is free to set forth a policy that makes clear that such computers or hard

drives can be searched by the company at any time. Jn such a case the employee has no

expectation of privacy.

3. In this case, Bryce McNatnee, as President of Plaintiff, Loest & McNamee, has provided

an affidavit stating that he conveyed and discussed wjth company employees, including

· Defendant Katherine Camera, the company policy that company computers were to be

1

l

08/22/2012 13:52 13126035795 MIKVA PAGE 03/03

used for company business only and that company computer::; had to be returned

immediately upon termination of employment. Defendants have not provided any

counter affidavit, although their memorandum was filed two days after the Plaintiff's.

Based upon. Mr. McNamee's unrebutted affidavit, it is clear to the Court that Ms. Camera

did not have an expectation. of privacy relative to her use of the hard drive and understood

that it was to be used solely for company business.

4. A number of the cases cited by the parties ordered disclosure in such circumstances of all

documents, including those that are attomey~client privileged. This seems to the Court to

be unnecessary in this situation. Indeed, as one of the cases cited by Defendants makes

clear, a higher standard applies to waiver of attorney-client privilege than to a more

general waiver of the right to privacy. Curto v. Medical World Communications, Inc.,

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29387 at 24-25 (E.D. N.Y May 15, 2006). In this case~ the Court

directs the Defendant to redact any attorney-client communications from the hard drive,

preserve them separately and to list each of them on a detailed privilege log that makes

clear who the communication is to, who it is from and the date of the communication. If

there is an issue as to whether the privilege has been properly claimed, the Plaintiff can

bring a proper Motion.

5. Accordingly, Defendant Camera is ordered to produce the hard drive that was purchased

on her former employer's credit card within twenty-one days. Prior to such production,

she or her attorney may redact any attorney-client communications on that hard drive and

preserve those separately and list them on a privilege log to be provided to Plaintiff. If

this Order presents logistical issues, the parties should contact the Court's law clerk and

request that this case be placed on the status call at the first available date that is

convenient for the parties. If there arc no such issues, this case remains continued for

further status on December 4, 2012, at 9:45, with all discovery to be completed by

November 30, 2012.

. T'Ifl!f,~.~.D JUDGE MARV LAfr'F n1kvf': UlCIO

AUG ?. 2 lU12 OOROTH't lih1V1;-;111l

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT t:OURT OF COOK COUNTY, IL

DEPUTY CLERK 2

Entered:

Circuit Court of Cook Coullty, Illinois

County Department, Chancery Division

' '

Exhibit 9

,, I I

I IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC. d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION, A Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

Hon. Mary L. Mikva

No. 11CH31184

KATHERINE CAMERA, an Individual and ,,, - BROADBENT SELECTIONS~lNC., a

Delaware corporation,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants.

DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING DISCOVERY OF KATHERINE CAMERA'S HARD DRIVE

Plaintiff has demanded that Defendant Katherine Camera turn over a hard drive from her

computer that was purchased with funds from Defendant. Ms. Camera's hard drive contains

personal information irrelevant to the current dispute as well as privileged communications.

There is simply no basis for Plaintiff to obtain this information. Ms. Cam.era proposes returning

the hard drive to Plaintiff after it has been erased and conducting discovery of relevant and non-

privileged information from a forensic image of her hard drive that was made at the outset of this

litigation once a pro~<;>col h~_been es~blished for such discovery ~e'.g.,_~ey _word search~s, etc.).

To allow Plaintiff the unfettered access it seeks would violate Ms. Camera's right of privacy,

would sanction irrelevant discovery in this matter, and invade the province of Ms. Camera's

privileged communications with counsel. Such a course is not warranted or allowed under the

law.

The court in Muick v. Gelnayre Electronics, 280 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 2002) recognized that

an employee may have a valid expectation and right of privacy in a laptop computer issued to

him/her by an employer. The court analogized such a scenario to a situation "if the employer

·1

equips the employee's office with a safe or file cabinet or other receptacle in which to keep his

private papers, he can assume that the contents of the safe are private." Muick, 280 F.3d at 743.

Other courts have expounded upon Muick and concluded an employee .maintains a right of

privacy in an employee issued computer unless the employer maintains a policy that is

communicated to the employee sufficient to defeat the employee's expectation of privacy. See,

e.g., Curto v. Medical World Communications, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29387, at *16-18

i -(E:D.N.Y:-May 15, 2006) (find.mg no waiver by employee of attorney-client prlvilege f~r

documents retrieved from work computer where company policy ambiguous).

In the present case, no company policy was presented to Ms. Camera that would defeat

her expectation and right of privacy. Perhaps more importantly, no company policy exists that

would defeat her expectation that her communications with her counsel would be privileged.

Ms. Camera's communications are entitled to protection under the attorney-client privilege and

she has a right of privacy concerning the personal information stored on her laptop.

The procedure proposed by Defendants ensures that Ms. Camera's rights and privileged

communications are protected. Plaintiff will not be prejudiced in· any way by the procedure

proposed by Defendants. Keyword searches based on the names of the suppliers that· Ms .

. Camera . al!egedly illegally solicited can easi}r be .crafted and e~~cuted. _ This will reveal all

relevant information and documents for the present case. Instead, Plaintiff seeks unfettered

access to Ms. Camera's files (most of which have absolutely nothing to do with this case)

containing her personal information and privileged communications. Such an intrusion into Ms.

Camera's personal information and privileged communications is unwarranted.

Ms. Camera asked that the Court permit her to return the hard drive to Plaintiff erased

and that the parties execute electronic discovery in this case as it is conducted in all cases - i.e., a

2

·1

protocol is established with a vendor to conduct key word searches on the forensic image of Ms>

Camera's hard drive.

Joseph R. Marconi Victor J. Pioli JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.

33 West Momoe Street Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 372-0770 Firm ID No. 06347

Attorneys for Defendants, Katherine Camera and Broadbent Selections, Inc.

3

Respectfully submitted,

KATHERINE CAMERA, an individual and BROADBENT SELECTIONS, INC., a California corporation

By: Uf.,,U(";.t r u fL · ~- /,'~. 'One of their ttOrneys

. ,

Exhibit 10

JOHNSON&BELLLtd. -----Attorneys at Law-----

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

Michael P. Tomlinson 8501 West Higgins Rd. Suite 420 Chicago, Illinois 60631

September 20, 2012

SUITE 2700 33 WEST MONROE STREET

CHICAGO, IL 60603-5404 TELEPHONE: (312) 372-0770

FACSIMILE: (312) 372-9818

11051 BROADWAY, SUITE 8 CROWN POINT, IN 46307

TELEPHONE: (219) 791-1900 FACSIMILE: (219) 791-1901

WWW.JOf-INSONANDBELL.COM

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER

(312) 984-0276 pioliv@jbltd.com

Re: Loest & McNamee, Inc. v. Katherine Camera and Broadbent Selections Case No.: 11 CH 31184 Our File No.: 9028-11001

Dear Mr. Tomlinson:

Enclosed please find the Mac Passport External Hard Drive that is the subject of the Court's August 22, 2012 Order. We apologize for the delay; however, as you will learn upon inspection, we were unable to find or access any substantive files contained there. We believe that there are no substantive files there, only operational and software files that were included with the purchase of the device.

As your client shoUid have informed you, the Passport was obtained by Ms. Camera solely for the purpose of holding her !Tunes files and some personal pictures which were supposed to be transferred off of her BWC laptop. In the period from April 2010 (when it was purchased) through her termination, Ms. Camera was never able to make the device function. Consequently, there is no reason to dispute your inspection of it.

However, we do reserve the right to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's August 22, 2012 Order for two reasons. First, the device itself is the personal property of Ms. Camera and should be returned to her. Second, Mr. McNamee's characterization of the circumstances and purposes for purchasing the Passport was materially incorrect. We believe that several statements contained there were contrived for the purpose of obtaining access to the Passport and were not an honest recounting of the facts.

Mr. Michael P. Tomlinson September 21, 2012 Page2

JOHNSON&BELLud ---Attorneys at Law---

With respect to the remaining discovery issues per your September 20, 2012 email to Joe Marconi, we appreciate your position and will be providing responses to you by Monday, September 24, 2012 as you indicated.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Very truly yours,

v~r2(j}A:~fl_. Victor J. Pioli

' .

Exhibit 11

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC. d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION, a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

KA THERINE CAMERA, an individual, and ) BROADBENT SELECTIONS, INC., a ) Delaware corporation, )

Defendants. ) )

Case No. 11CH31184

DECLARATION OF DAVID THORSON

I, David Thorson, under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the

Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, do verify and attest as follows:

1. My name is David Thorson. I am over the age of 18 years and I am a Principal at

TeamWerks, which is located at 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 510, Chicago, Illinois 60601.

2. I am an expert in the field of computer forensics. My certifications in the field

include the EnCase Certified Examiner (EnCE) and Project Management Professional (PMP).

My professional and business affiliations included the FBI Infragard Team and the High Tech

Crimes Investigative Association (HTCIA). In my experience as a computer forensic

investigator I have forensically analyzed over one hundred devices.

3. I have been qualified as a computer forensic expert in the Court of Cook County,

Illinois, by Judge Mary Anne Mason. Case Number 04 CH 04123.

4. On or around September 26, 2012, I was contacted by Michael P. Tomlinson to

inspect a My Passport external hard drive to determine whether any information was contained

on the hard drive and whether any information had been changed, deleted, or wiped from the

hard drive.

5. I started the forensic process for the My Passport external hard drive by creating an

exact forensic image of the external hard drive so as not to alter any of its content. I then

forensically analyzed the image using an industry standard tool called Encase by Guidance

Software. Encase allows a forensic investigator to explore the drive's content at an extremely

detailed level in order to identify how the drive has been used in the past.

6. According to the documentation for the My Passport external hard drive, this hard

drive is sold with pre-installed utility software. In addition, according to the same

documentation this hard drive should have been formatted to have a single HFS+ J partition.

7. Creation, modification, and access of folders and files on the drive indicates usage of

the drive by an end user. Any such activity will produce changes in the date and time stamps

relating to those folders and files. Such information can be used to assemble a timeline of

activity relating to when the device was connected to a computer. The information will also

display content accessed by end users.

8. My forensic review performed on this device showed no signs of a partition or utility

software having been created on the drive. The forensic review also showed no signs of any user

data stored on the device such as iTunes, iTunes music, data, or data backups.

9. This model of My Passport external hard drive, Part Number WDBAAB3200ACH­

OO, is only sold with pre-installed utility software. This model of My Passport external hard

drive cannot be purchased with all "O" (zeros) and no utility software. In addition, any physical

damage to the hard drive (e.g., dropping it in water, etc.) would not replace the information on

the hard drive with zeros.

I 0. A file or hard drive with all zeros or other repetitive character filling the sectors is

consistent with the use of data wiping software. Wiping a single file generally only destroys the

· content of that file. By wiping an entire hard drive, additional information about that file such as

creation and modification dates, file size, and file name are also destroyed. It has been my

experience that this destroyed content and information cannot be rebuilt. I have seen evidence of

wiping of this nature in at least six other unrelated matters.

11. There is software available that wipes hard drives, like this one, by replacing all of

the data with "O" (zeros). Such software programs are relatively easy to use, and may be

downloaded from the Internet for free. For example, a software named Active KillDisk may be

downloaded from the Internet and installed onto a PC computer. A user of such a program

would only need to connect an external hard drive to a PC computer using a USB port/cable,

start the Active KillDisk program, select the attached hard drive listed on the screen, and then

select to Kill it.

12. Wiping an entire hard drive with all zeros destroys all data on that hard drive. That

data includes folder and file information, along with all creation, modification and access date

and time stamps. Undoing such massive wiping in order to restore complete creation,

modification and access date and time stamps to what was previous to the wiping is not possible,

in my opinion.

13. My conclusion is that this hard drive must have been altered to contain only zeros, a

result which can only be produced by active and deliberate modification to the data stored on the

hard drive.

14. In my expert opinion, the forensic analysis I performed on this hard drive showed that

the hard drive was intentionally wiped clean of all data and that the complete set of data and

metadata that it contained can never be recovered from this device.

FURTHER DECLARANT SA YETH NOT.

I declare under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief, and as to such matters, the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.

Executed on February '2. l, 2013. /CC_~~~ David Thorson

·' .

Exhibit 12

Katherine Camera Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1

2

STATE OF ILLINOIS

COUNTY OF C 0 0 K

) ) )

SS.

3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC., d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION, a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KATHERINE CAMERA, an individual, and BROADBENT SELECTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 11 CH 31184 ) ) ) ) ) ) )

13 The deposition of KATHERINE CAMERA, taken

14 before Patricia A. Mache, Certified Shorthand

15 Reporter and Notary Public, taken pursuant to

16 the provisions of the Illinois Code of Civil

17 Procedure and the Rules of the Supreme Court

18 thereof pertaining to the taking of depositions

19 for the purpose of discovery at 8501 West

20 Higgins Road, Suite 420, Chicago, Illinois,

21 commencing at 9:35 a.m. on the 26th day of

22 October, A.D. 2012.

23

24

Bridges Court Reporting Page: I

Katherine Camera Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1 APPEARANCES:

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

TOMLINSON LAW OFFICE, P.C. MR. MICHAEL P. TOMLINSON 8501 West Higgins Road Suite 420 Chicago, Illinois 60631 312-715-8770

On behalf of the Plaintiff;

JOHNSON & BELL, LTD. MR. VICTOR J. PIOLI 33 West Monroe Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312-372-0770

On behalf of the Defendant.

13 ALSO PRESENT:

14 MR. JOHN SOLAN

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Bridges Court Reporting Page: 2

Katherine Camera Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

verify whether Mr. Milazzo had only moved your

personal items over to the hard drive?

A. Just a conversation with him.

Q. You didn't --

A. He actually took the computer over to

his apartment; so I didn't see him do anything.

And he brought it back a few hours later.

Q. In this last -- in the last sentence I

read, I will leave everything parenthesis files

that pertain to the job on the computer.

Did you have anything that pertained to

the job on the computer other than files such as

e-mails that you left -- that you had taken off

the computer?

A. I didn't think I took any e-mails off

the computer, but files that I wanted to leave

on there would be like files about Illinois and

Pure and the roster and maybe a container order,

that kind of thing should have been left on

there.

Q. Do you know of any way that we can get

22 in contact with Mr. Milazzo?

23 A. I do not.

24 Q. So after Mr. Milazzo was done cleaning

Bridges Court Reporting Page: 74

Katherine Camera Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1 up your work computer, did he also return the

2 hard drive to you that he used to put your --

3 A. Yes, he did and I was never able to use

4 the hard drive. I couldn't figure out how to

5 open it.

6 Q. Now, when you were terminated from BWC,

7 you did not return the hard drive to BWC, is

8 that correct?

9 A. That's correct because we agreed that I

10 would -- he would take it off the expenses that

11 he owed me.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Q. So you did not return it?

A. That is correct.

(Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit

No. 9 marked as requested.)

BY MR. TOMLINSON:

Q. We just talked about you not being able

to access the hard drive. I want you to take a

look at this e-mail and let me know when you've

had a chance to do that.

A. Yes.

Q. And this is an e-mail dated October 8,

2010, from you to Gregg Perkins, Bartholomew

Broadbent and Cat Miles with the subject being

Bridges Court Reporting Page: 75

Katherine Camera Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

Tarlant info. Do you see that?

yes,

A.

Q.

I do.

Do you remember sending this e-mail?

A. I don't remember but it's from me so

I do.

1

2

3

4

5

6 Q. In the first paragraph it says, "I was

7 going through my hard drive folders last night

8 and found some interesting bits of information

9 that I had saved on wines, DA reports, et

10 cetera."

11

12

13

A.

Q.

Did I read that correct?

Correct.

And the next page Broadbent 1718,

14 that's the attachment to the e-mail, is that

15 right?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. Is this a document that was created

18 while you were at BWC?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Did you create this document?

21

22

23

24

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

Bridges Court Reporting

No, Neil created it.

Neil Palladino?

Correct.

Where did you have this document

Page: 76

Katherine Camera Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Boutique Wine Collection for approximately five

months, is that right?

A. This is October -- this is 2011.

Q. The e-mail down below. This the first

e-mail

A. Oh, I see. Yes. Yes.

Q. So October 8, 2010, was after you had

left BWC?

A.

Q.

Correct.

How is it that you had this document?

A. Maybe from this -- I don't know, but

probably the same file that I have for all this.

Q.

A.

Q.

Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous.

-- folder that appears on your laptop?

16 You're not sure whether it's on the hard drive

or not? 17

18

19

A.

Q.

I don't know what's on the hard drive.

Okay. In order to access the

20 miscellaneous folder, do you have to have the

21 hard drive plugged into your computer?

22 A. No, I don't believe so.

23 Q. Have you ever accessed the

24 miscellaneous folder without having the hard

Bridges Court Reporting Page: 82

Katherine Camera Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1 drive plugged into your computer?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Because you no longer have the hard

4 drive, correct?

5 A. I don't have the hard drive.

6 Q. To your knowledge was there ever a

7 backup of your BWC laptop created on the hard

8 drive prior to the time you were terminated?

9 A. As I mentioned, Mike took the computer

10 and the hard drive; so I don't know -- I do not

11 know exactly what he did.

12 Q. Are you aware at some point in time the

13 information contained on the hard drive you

14 purchased with the BWC credit card was erased?

15 A. Say that one more time?

16 Q. Are you aware of whether at some point

17 in time the information contained on the hard

18 drive you purchased with BWC's credit card was

19 erased?

20 A. No, because once Mike brought

21 everything back, that hard drive has always been

22 sitting in my office on a shelf. And as I

23 mentioned, I tried to open it one time.

24 Q. Okay.

Bridges Court Reporting Page: 83

Katherine Camera Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1 A. And I couldn't figure it out. So if I

2 moved something, I did it not knowing that I did

3 it.

4 Q. After you plugged the hard drive

5 in after -- I'm sorry. After you received the

6 hard drive back from Mike Milazzo, did you ever

7 connect it to another computer?

8

9

A.

Q.

Yes, my computer that I have now.

The computer that you have now, does it

10 also operate Time Machine Software?

11 A.

12 Q.

13 A.

14 Q.

I don't know.

For backup purposes?

I don't know.

Do you have any -- do you know whether

15 your computer currently is being backed up in

16 any fashion?

17

18

19

A.

Q.

A.

I

Is

It

have no idea.

your current

' lS.

20 Q. And what type of

21 A. I believe it's a

22 all I know.

computer a Mcintosh?

computer lS it?

Mac Book Pro and that's

23 Q. Have you provided to your counsel every

24 communication including e-mails between and you

Bridges Court Reporting Page: 84

Katherine Camera Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1 suppliers of BWC both present and former from

2 January

3 A. I believe I have.

4 Q. -- from January 1, 2008 to the present?

5 A. I believe I have. I went through my

6 AOL account. I think I did.

7 Q. You went through your AOL account. Did

8 you also go through all your Facebook posts and

9 messages?

10 A. I believe I did. That was pertinent to

11 this case, yes, I believe so.

12 Q. When you say that's pertinent to this

13 case, are you making any type of distinction

14 between e-mails that you consider to be personal

15 e-mails between you and BWC's former suppliers

16 and

17 A. No.

18 Q. -- work related?

19 A. No. What I'm saying is that if there

20 was whatever they asked me for, I provided

21 them. I went and spent hours looking up old

22 e-mails on AOL and through Facebook; so if I

23 missed something -- I might have missed

24 something, but I didn't do it intentionally.

Bridges Court Reporting Page: 85

Katherine Camera Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1 I mean I have at this point 715 friends

2 on Facebook and at that time I think I had a

3 little over 600 so

4 Q. So you had -- I want to go back to that

5 e-mail that we had in front of you. You can get

6 it in front of you if you want where Tarlant

7 A. Right here. Exhibit 9.

8 Q. Exhibit 9. When you say that you were

9 going through your hard drive folders, is that

10 not accurate?

11 A. It's not accurate because I have a

12 folder that's on my computer that says

13 miscellaneous. And I didn't know what was on

14 there.

15 When I opened it, there's tons of stuff

16 on there that there's maps on there, there's

17 sell sheets, there's soil sample analysis,

18 there's pictures, there's stuff on there.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. There's also stuff on there from my

21 Dell that I gave -- I had bought a Dell and then

22 I gave it to my niece when she went to college;

23 so again pictures and

24 Q. Are you a Linkedin member? Do you use

Bridges Court Reporting Page: 86

Katherine Camera Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1 that form of social --

2 A. I don't even know what that is.

3 Q. Linkedin?

4 A. Oh, I thought you said Blinkden. Oh,

5 yes, I am Linkedin but I hardly ever go on that.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Q. Prior to -- whether prior or after the

time you were terminated by BWC, did you ever

use Linkedin to communicate with suppliers that

were former BWC suppliers?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Did you

A. Well, unless they asked me to be a

Linkedin connection or whatever you call it.

Q. Other than that?

A. No.

Q. Did you search your Linkedin account

for messages of that nature?

A. I don't believe I did because I don't

recall ever having anything like that.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Do you use Twitter?

Absolutely not.

I don't blame you.

It's enough I can figure out the

24 computer.

Bridges Court Reporting Page: 87

I ' .,

Exhibit 13

Charles M. Melazzo Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1 STATE OF ILLINOIS

2 COUNTY OF C 0 0 K

) ) )

SS.

3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

LOEST & MCNAMEE, INC., d/b/a BOUTIQUE WINE COLLECTION, a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KATHERINE CAMERA, an individual, and BROADBENT SELECTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 11 CH 31184 ) ) ) ) ) ) )

13 The deposition of CHARLES M. MELAZZO,

14 taken before Patricia A. Mache, Certified

15 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public, taken

16 pursuant to the provisions of the Illinois Code

17 of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the Supreme

18 Court thereof pertaining to the taking of

19 depositions for the purpose of discovery at

20 8501 West Higgins Road, Suite 420, Chicago,

21 Illinois, commencing at 9:58 a.m. on the 7th day

22 of December, A.D. 2012.

23

24

Bridges Court Reporting Page: I

. \

Charles M. Melazzo Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1 APPEARANCES:

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Bridges Court Reporting

TOMLINSON LAW OFFICE, P.C. MR. MICHAEL P. TOMLINSON 8501 West Higgins Road Suite 420 Chicago, Illinois 60631 312-715-8770

On behalf of the Plaintiff;

JOHNSON & BELL, LTD. MR. VICTOR J. PIOLI 33 West Monroe Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60603 312-372-0770

On behalf of the Defendants.

Page:2

Charles M. Melazzo Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

Q. Were you successful in transferring,

you mentioned pictures, were you successful in

transferring those?

A. Yeah, just some personal photos.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Q. Other than the iTunes and pictures, did

you transfer anything else from her computer to

the hard drive?

A. I have no recollection of doing

anything else.

10 Q. Is it possible that you did something

11 else and you don't recall it?

12 A. To be honest, I don't have -- it's been

13 so long since I did that and it was just like,

14 oh, I'm doing a favor for a friend, I didn't

15 really

16 Q. Okay. After the time that you

17 performed the transfer of those files to the

18 hard drive, did Miss Camera -- did you have any

19 further communication with Miss Camera about the

20 hard drive?

21

22

A.

Q.

No, not that I recall.

She ever come to you and tell you hey,

23 I can't access this, can you try again?

24 A. No. The next time I saw her she

Bridges Court Reporting Page:22

Charles M. Melazzo Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1 thanked me. She said she was going to get --

2 when she got another computer, she was going to

3 get another Mac. She liked it so much now that

4 she knew how to use it. And then shortly after

5 that I moved and we lost contact.

6

7

8

9

Q.

A.

probably

can't

About when did you move?

It was before I started at Apple; so

' in -- before June of 2009, but I

I can't recall exactly. It's been

10 about three years since I moved.

11 Q. What was the physical condition of the

12 devices that Miss Camera provided to you when

13 she asked you to backup -- when she asked you to

14 move files over to the hard drive?

15 A. The only thing I can really attest to

16 is the external condition, and it looked like

17 she didn't really move her MacBook around all

18 that much. It looked like it was in good shape.

19 Q. If I told you that the hard drive was a

20 Western Digital My Passport for Mac, does that

21 refresh your recollection as to what the hard

22 drive was?

23 A. Not really.

24 Q. And when you were moving, performing

Bridges Court Reporting Page:23

Charles M. Melazzo Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1 the moving of files, the hard drive was

2 operational, correct?

3 A. Yes, sir, at that time.

4 Q. At that time. Okay. Did Miss Camera

5 ask you to remove anything from the hard drive?

6 A. Not that I recall.

7 Q. Did you use any software to erase any

8 files from the hard drive?

9 A. Not that I recall.

10 Q. Did you erase any files from the hard

11 drive in any other way other than using

12 software?

13

14

A.

Q.

No, not that I recall.

At the time that you handed the hard

15 drive back to Miss Camera there were files on

16 it, is that correct?

17

18

A.

Q.

Yes, sir.

Do you remember whether there was a

19 folder on Miss Camera's computer entitled

20 miscellaneous on the desktop?

21 A. No recollection of that, no.

22 Q. Do you recall moving any folder called

23 miscellaneous either from the hard drive to the

24 computer or from the computer to the hard drive?

Bridges Court Reporting Page: 24

Charles M. Melazzo Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

A. No, sir, not that I recall. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Q. Other than moving files from the

computer to the hard drive, did you do anything

else that would have altered the operational

capabilities of the hard drive or the computer?

10

11

12

A. No, not that I recall.

Q. Did you shut down the laptop computer

before returning it to Miss Camera?

A. I cannot recall if I did or not. I

might have just put it to sleep. I might have

shut it down.

Q. How did you return it to her?

13 A. In the same condition. She came over

14 and or I probably walked it over to her

15 house. I can't really remember that, but it was

16 in working condition.

17 Q. Both the computer and hard drive were

18 in working condition?

19

20

A.

Q.

Yes, sir.

As of the time you returned them to

21 Miss Camera?

22

23

A.

Q.

Yes, sir.

Did you explain to Miss Camera the

24 worked that you performed after you performed

Bridges Court Reporting Page:25

' \

Charles M. Melazzo Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1 it?

2

3

A. I guess.

much to explain.

I mean there wasn't really

I just said yeah, that

4 everything's set, you know.

5 Q. Did you explain to her how to access it

6 on the hard drive? Access the files that you

7 had moved to the hard drive?

8 A. Not really. I mean she kind of already

9 knew how to. You know, you just click to open

10 the hard drive and whatever files are there are

11 there.

12 Q. How do you know that she knew that?

13 A. Because she, you know, when I worked

14 with her at her house kind of showing her how to

15 do it, she, you know, it seemed like she

16 understood that I was opening the hard drive and

17 her files were sitting there.

18 Q. Did she say to you that she had ever

19 done that before?

20 A. No, not that I recall.

21 Q. Did you explain to Miss Camera how to

22 move files or folders from her hard drive -- or

23 from her laptop onto her hard drive?

24 A. Not that I can recall.

Bridges Court Reporting Page: 26

7 Ii '

Charles M. Melazzo Loest & McNamee, Inc. d/b/a Boutique Wine Collection vs. Camera, et al.

1 Q. Did you explain to her how to access

2 the files that were on her hard drive?

3 A. Well, I told her that -- the only thing

4 I can recall telling her about that was just

5 making sure that if she wants to play like her

6 music, she has to have the hard drive plugged

7 ' in.

8 Q. And again, she didn't ever tell you she

9 was unable to do that after the time you

10 performed the services for her?

11 A. No, the next time I saw her she said

12 oh, thanks, it's working great.

13 Q. She said it was working great?

14 A. Or something I'm paraphrasing;

15 something along those lines. She seemed very

16 satisfied with, you know, the fact that I had

17 shown her kind of some basics in how to use her

18 Mac and made sure her music was moved over.

19 Q. Did she indicate to you that she had

20 been able to access the files on the hard drive?

21 A. Not precisely, but the fact that she

22 was happy about the service, I just assumed that

23 the computer was working and she can access her

24 music.

Bridges Court Reporting Page: 27

J 'l '•

GrouJ! Exhibit 14

Reiko Satoh

From:

Sent:

To:

Kat Camera [katcamera1@aol.com]

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:12 AM

Reiko Satoh

Subject: Fwd: Markus Huber

Attachments: image001.gif

"Redacted"

----Original Message----From: katcamera1 <katcamera1@aol.com> To: office <office@weingut-huber.at> Sent Thu, Mar 11, 2010 7:21 am Subject: Re: Markus Huber

Dear Markus,

CONFIDENTIAL

I tried to send an earlier email but I am not sure it through ... please let me know if you get this! Yes, you can trust me! You are right about Bryce's company, the way he treats people & the lack of structure & the way he does business . .it blows my mind sometimes! I have tried to tell him help him sometimes he listens & sometimes he does not. It is very frustrating. He has promised things to me & I have caught him in lies so I don't completely trust him.

as far as owing money I am not surprised about that either ... he is always strapped for cash. I do not blame you, Ken or any of our other suppliers for feeling the way you do .. what gets me is that if you owe that much money stop spending money ... he could have saved money by not having the portfolio tasting, growers tour, sales meeting & stop all the trips he goes on ... him & Sandrine are going to Barcelona at the end of this month & taking a BWC sales rep & a customer ... it makes no sense!! He told us at the sales meeting that he made Sandrine & Jeff partners .. then he told Troy (Pure) at our dinner that he gave them 1 % ... 1 % of what!?!?

He did tell us at the meeting that we are to grow Huber, Ken Forrester & Pares Balta by 33% this year but if we can't get the wine how can we grow?

I would look for another importer so that you do not lose any ground on the hard work that it has taken to build the brand .. & in the meantime you could sell direct to your biggest markets so you don't lose business ... ! know that you have heard of Vin de Vino (they import lots of Austrian wines .. .last year his suppliers took over his company because he owed them so much money! because they did that they are still in business without Seth Allen & Vin de Vino is still growing & doing better. If you need any help finding importers let me know .. .! will tell you the truth on how they are perceived in the market, etc, etc

I am so scared to be either let go/fired of for the plug to be pulled .. .! am single & the sole supporter of my mortgage(house) & all of my bills ... the economy is so bad here it will take a while to find something ... 1 have to like the wines to sell them. Keep me posted if you would .. please let me know if you and when you are going to fire Bryce. I will start looking as soon as i can. I have Melanie Tarlant & Sandrine in my market until Friday & I am completely exhausted.

the sad thing here is that I truly love the wines in the portfolio .... I will start looking and letting all my contacts know that i am quietly looking so it will take some time .. there are so many people unemployed ...

Markus, thank you for being honest with me & lets keep in touch.

Love, Katherine

----Original Message----

10/26/2011

BROADBENT 29

From: Weingut Huber <office@weinqut-huber.at> To: katcamera1@aol.com Sent: Wed, Mar 10, 2010 9:14 pm Subject: Markus Huber

Hello Katherine!

I hope this email finds you well. Although I probably should not do this, since I guess I can trust you please read the following lines.

I really recommend you to look for another job. Things are completely wrong at Bryces company. It's not only that he treats you guys badly, ifs the whole structure of his company.

He owes me and can together about 450 K in depth. The only I idea how he wanna solve that problem is that we ship more wine, he offers prepayment to his customers and he want's to pay with this money old depth. I asked him to take a personal risk, but some private money in(if he has some) or ask his mother or his grandmother, with both have enough money, but he does not want this. So I take a personal risk on his depth with my property against my bank, so why should I do this furthermore?

I will not support his business model any more, since his growth is only financed thru his suppliers. I will ship no more wine until everything is 100 % caught up. Since this is impossible, I guess I will have to leave him pretty soon. Ken has the same opinion and a couple of other small suppliers are also thinking the same way. So as soon as the first one pulls the plug, the others will pretty much follow, since there will be nothing left to get.

Furthermore I think ifs ridicules to tell his bigger suppliers to have a growth of 33 % this year. This is what he tells Ken, Parres Balta and me. These are just numbers in his mind which he would like to happen, but we all now that under the current circumstances this is impossible, this is what he would like to happen, but I don·t see it.

Katherine I really like you, so my suggestion is look for another job as soon as you can. Ifs 5 minutes before 12.

I have no more patience with Bryce, I will rather move sooner then later. Even if it means to be not represented in the market at all, our maybe only carry on with a few people directly, irs just better leaving a sinking boat, then one that is already under water.

Please keep this really confidential, as you can imagine this can cause a lot of problems. Let me know what you think

Markus

Anmeldung Newsletter/ Subscribe newsletter http://www.weingut-huber.at/newsletter/

Weingut Markus Huber Weingut Markus Huber GmbH & Co KG Weinriedenweg 13 A-3134 Reichersdorf Tel: + 43 2783 82999 Fax: + 43 2783 82999 4 mail: office(i_!,'weingut-huber.at www.wcingur-huber.at

ATU: 65209918 FN: 334116y

wv;w.traditionsweinglltcr.at

10/26/2011 BROADBENT30

~ I i

.

D

BROADBENT 31

10/26/2011

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Bryce,

Weingut Huber <office@weingut-huber.at> Tuesday, December 27, 201112:37 AM 'Bryce McNamee' AW: [Fwd: Re: AW: Re: Container!]

I was not sure how to handle this issue. I agree looking about it retrospective, maybe I should have brought it up. But on the other hand,= did not know how to qualify this information. She was definitely not the only employee who was complaining about things, even without asking =hem.

But you are right, in a 100 % valid relationship this is something which should have been brought up. I apologize, but I did not do it on purpose =o damage you, my intention was to just ignore it and don't want to get involved.

Markus

This message originates from Weingut Markus Huber GmbH & Co KG. This facsimile and all attachments may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. =f you are not the intended recipient, you should immediately stop reading =his message and delete it from your system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments =s strictly prohibited. All personal messages express solely the sender's =iews and not those of Markus Huber GmbH & Co KG. This message may not be =opied or distributed without this disclaimer. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by phone and return the original =essage to the above address.

Anmeldung Newsletter/ Subscribe newsletter

http://www.weingut-huber.at/newsletter/

Weingut Markus Huber

CONFIDENTIAL BWC 005008

Weingut Markus Huber GmbH & Co KG

Weinriedenweg 13

A-3134 Reichersdorf

Tel: + 43 2783 82999

Fax: + 43 2783 82999 4

mail: office@weingut-huber.at

www.weingut-huber.at

ATU: 65209918

FN: 334116y

www.traditionsweinguter.at

-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----Von: Bryce McNamee [mailto:b.mcnamee@att.net] Gesendet: Samstag, 24. Dezember 201110:34 An: Markus Huber Betreff: FW: [Fwd: Re: AW: Re: Container!]

Markus,

I still cannot believe that you never shared this 'confidential', =mail from Katherine with me. I'm sure that it was somewhere in your mind =henever we spoke thereafter. I don't understand why you would have shared any of =ur business dealings/terms with Katherine. Sandrine provided this email =nd many others to me just before I made the decision to dismiss Katherine almost a year to the day later. The irony is that the quantified amount left open and two weeks overdue on 14 April 2010 was less than the =mount of her annual salary and T/E combined. Katherine was already busy with her plan to undermine the trust our suppliers had in me because she did not =et the promotion to National Sales Manager two months before writing this =o you. She hadn't received the promotion for obvious reasons. Without =he

2

CONFIDENTIAL BWC 005009

resources to "start her own company," she simply started looking for =ther companies to carry out her ambitions to "try to steal [my] brands" =y whatever means within reach while creating a position for herself to =igrate into when the time was right. Now that time has passed, it's very =bvious what she did. She effected many people - you could have changed that outcome by simply sharing her email with me.

Sincerely, Bryce

Boutique Wine Collection™

P.O. Box 7436 Philadelphia, PA 19101 United States m: +l.914.954.6583 e: bryce@boutiquewines.info w: www.boutiquewines.info

* * * *** * ** * * * * * * * * * ********CON Fl DENTIAL COMMUNICATION******************************************* This message and any attachment contains confidential, proprietary =nd/or legally privileged information and is intended for use by the indicated addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee: (a) any =isclosure, reproduction, distribution or action you perform with or because of this message is strictly prohibited; (b) please return the complete message =o the sender; and (c) this message is not a solicitation for purchase or =ale or an agreement of any kind whatsoever that binds the sender. Boutique Wine Collection * P.O. Box 7436 * Philadelphia, PA 19101 * =914) 954-6583

*************************************************************************=** ********************

------ Forwarded Message From: Katherine Camera <katherinec@boutiquewines.info> To: Bryce MtNamee <bryce@boutiquewines.info>, Jeff Morgenthal <jeff@boutiquewi nes. info> Subject: [Fwd: Re: AW: *****SPAM***** Re: Container!]

---------------------------- Original Message =--------------------------­

Subject: Re: AW: *****SPAM***** Re: Container! From: katherinec@modwest.com Date: Sat, May 9, 2009 8:45 am To: "Weingut Huber" <office@weingut-huber.at> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=

Thanks, I appreciate it. Have a great weekend! Katherine

CONFIDENTIAL 3

BWC 005010

Sent via Black Berry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----From: "Weingut Huber" <office@weingut-huber.at>

Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 16:36:43 To: <katherinec@modwest.com> Subject: AW: *****SPAM***** Re: Container!

Hi Katherine!

Don't worry, I will keep everything in confidence.

Markus

Weingut Markus Huber

A-3134 Reichersdorf; Weinriedenweg 13

Phone: +43 699 12783 723

Fax: + 43 2783 82999 4

mail: office@weingut-huber.at

<http://www.weingut-huber.at/> www.weingut-huber.at

http://www. traditionswei ngueter .at/

-----U rspru ngli che Na ch richt-----Von: katherinec@modwest.com [mailto:katherinec@modwest.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 09. Mai 2009 15:50 An: Weingut Huber Betreff: *****SPAM***** Re: Container!

Markus, Thanks for your message I know that it isn't your fault but between you =nd me this is what is going on especially when Sandrine and Bryce travel. =f you want to comment to Bryce about the email that I replied to all on =hich is the one that I said I didn't understand why it is taking 14 days to =ick up once u gave the ok. As you saw from the email that I forwarded bryce =ot

4

CONFIDENTIAL BWC 005011

pissed that I copied you. Markus, I really love the portfolio but I don't believe that bryce is =oing to change. This is TOTALLY CONFIDENTIAL but Kimberly and Emily quit. Kimberly's last day was Friday and Emily's last day is the lSth(when =ryce leaves for Italy) he will be gone for 6 days. He has also mentioned to =e that he will be gone most of June. Sandrine will also be gone for part =f that too because they are meeting at VinExpo. I have given up trying to make things change. I truly believe that Bryce thinks everything is fine. For now I am going to go work my markets as =uch as I can while I quietly look for something else. I am telling you this =n confidence. As I said I love the portfolio. If I had the money I would =tart my own import business and try to steal his brands!!!! If there is anything that you need from me please let me know. I know =hat you have been friends with Bryce a long time and I truly do not want to cause any problems between the two of you so that is why I am asking =elling you this in confedence I can't afford to lose my job right now. Thanks =or everything markus. Your a class act! Katherine

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

From: "Weingut Huber" Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 08:38:45 +0200 To: 'Katherine'<katherine@boutiquewines.info> Subject: Container!

Hi Katherine!

rm really sorry. This is confidential here.

I have the container ready for more then a month now. I don't know =hat the problem is. The reality is that since Sandrine was on the growers tour =or 2 weeks, nothing happened in the office. One problem was the slow payments from Bryce, but as you know, I did take more risk and gave the container free, even if my bank would refuse it, since the exposure to Bryce is =ay to much.

I called Hillebrand immediately after I came back from the NPT. The =nswer was they don't have any pick up advice.

So even if Sandrine wanfs to blame me now on this, I'm really not responsibly. To be honest I don't know who really is.

5

CONFIDENTIAL BWC 005012

'1 ...,

I will speak to Bryce about this whole issue.

Best regards

Markus

Weingut Markus Huber

A-3134 Reichersdorf; Weinriedenweg 13

Phone: +43 699 12783 723

Fax: + 43 2783 82999 4

mail: office@weingut-huber.at

<http://www.weingut-huber.at/> www.weingut-huber.at

http://www.traditionsweingueter.at/

Katherine Camera Office: 773-252-3533 Fax: 773-252-5433

------ End of Forwarded Message

CONFIDENTIAL 6

BWC 005013