Preview
Filing # 143587435 E-Filed 02/09/2022 12:07:56 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH, FLORIDA.
CASE NO.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB
EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFFERY SIEPIERSKI; GINA FONTANA-SIEPIERSKI; and,
BLUTUSK TECH, LLC,
Defendants.
/
JEFFERY SIEPIERSKI; GINA FONTANA-SIEPIERSKI; and,
BLUTUSK TECH, LLC,
Counter and Third-Party Plaintiffs,
vs.
EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC; EXPERIMAC
FRANCHISING, LLC; UFG GROUP, INC. d/b/a UNITED
FRANCHISE GROUP; and, HEALTH CLUB
EXPERTS.COM,LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT,
Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendants.
/
FRANCHISEES’ MOTION TO COMPEL
Counter and third-party plaintiffs JEFFERY SIEPIERSKI, GINA FONTANA-
SIEPIERSKI, and BLUTUSK TECH, LLC (together, “Franchisees”), pursuant to Rules 1.340 and
1.380 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby file their motion to compel production of
plaintiff EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC’s (“ExperiMAX”) August 20, 2021 asset purchase
agreement, which ExperiMAX willfully misrepresented in discovery does not exist, and state:
1
LAPIN & LEICHTLING, LLP, 255 ALHAMBRA CIRCLE, SUITE 600, CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33134 (305) 569-4100
*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 02/09/2022 12:07:56 PM ***CASE NO.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB
ARGUMENT
1. On June 25, 2021, Franchisees served, among other things, their defenses to
ExperiMAX’s amended complaint. (Answer and Defenses, filed June 25, 2021 (“Defenses”).)
2. Among other defenses, Franchisees allege that ExperiMAX lacks standing to
prosecute this action. (Defenses 36 at “Ninth.”)! See Glynn v. First Nat’l Bank, 912 So. 2d 357,
358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“There is no question that lack of standing is an affirmative defense that
must be raised by the defendant and that the failure to raise it generally results in waiver.”) (internal
quotes and citation omitted).
3. In August 2021 ExperiMAX announced it had in fact “joined with” a different
company, DRPHONEFIX INC. n/k/a TECHY:
De PEt ae et Rona ed
a eid
We are happy to announce the joining of our twe companies into one big team and
hted for the Experimax team to join the Techy team. DrPhoneFix has been
ss for 14 years and as of last year, we rebranded to TECHY. This has helped
us immensely to make our customers aware that we do all electronic repairs, home
installs, wrote:Hello to all Experimax Franchise Owners
EUs Mite et eae)
We are happy to announce the joining of our two companies into one big team and
are delighted for the Experimax team to join the Techy team. DrPhoneFix has been
in business for 14 years and as of last year, we rebranded to TECHY. This has helped
us immensely to make our customers aware that we do all electronic repairs, home
installs, sell devices and sell electronic accessories.
We want to make this transition as smooth as possible with the help of our Techy
team and also, the Experimax team. With the knowledge of both our companies, we
have the expectation set to reach new heights in the technology industry together
and become one of the leading electronic repairs and install companies. We look
forward to meeting everyone and expanding our Techy brand to everyone around
the world.
Best Regards,
Bill Daragan CEO & Founder
TECHY By DrPhoneFix | 3000 SW 4th Ave , Fort Lauderdale , FL 33315
Unsubscribe mark. shor@experimax.comUpdate Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by franchise@drphonefix.com powered by
Try email marketing for free today!IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC, CASE NO: 502021CA001626XXXXMB
Plaintiff, DIVISION: AO
vs.
JEFFERY SIEPIERSKI, GINA FONTANA-
SIEPIERSKI, and BLUTUSK TECH, LLC,
Defendants.
JEFFERY SIEPIERSKI; GINA FONTANA-
SIEPIERSKI; and, BLUTUSK TECH, LLC, EX H | B | I J )
Counter-Plaintiffs,
vs.
EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC;
EXPERIMAC FRANCHISING, LLC;
UFG GROUP, INC. d/b/a UNITED FRANCHISE
GROUP; and, HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM,
LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT,
Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFF EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
CONCERNING COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIM
Plaintiff, EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC (“Experimax”), by and through the
undersigned counsel, hereby serves its responses and objections to Defendants’ request for
production concerning allegations contained in in defendants’ counterclaim and third-party claim.
Dated: December 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted,
By: /Christian Dorismond
Mark D. Nichols, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 056580mnichols@ufgcorp.com
Christian Dorismond, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 10125387
cdorismond@ufgcorp.com
EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC
2121 Vista Parkway
West Palm Beach, FL 33411
Tel: (561) 868 -1453
Counsel for Experimax Franchising, LLCRESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
1. All communications and documents sent by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or
UFG to and/or received from Celtic Bank and/or Celtic Bank Corporation relating to any
Defendant and/or to any loan given by Celtic Bank and/or Celtic Bank Corporation to any
Defendant.
RESPONSE: Attached.
2. All documents relating to sales of EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC franchises
from June 23, 2013 through December 31, 2020 in which UFG acted as broker and/or provided
brokerage services to, for, or on behalf of the seller of any EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC
franchise.
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since
documents relating to sales of EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC franchises from June 23, 2013
through December 31, 2020 in which UFG acted as broker and/or provided brokerage services to,
for, or on behalf of the seller of any EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC franchise concem
franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated Defendants’ store, and time
periods before and after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the request is unduly
burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents connected to the
hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees.
3. All public franchise disclosure documents of EXPERIMAC and/or EXPERIMAX
issued by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG for, during, or in years 2013, 2014, 2015,
and/or 2016.RESPONSE: Attached.
4. All documents, including financial records, supporting EXPERIMAC’s claim on
its website in 2016 that “Franchisees should expect to spend about $136,000 to $277,000 to get
their store up and running....”
RESPONSE: Attached. See Response No. 3.
5. All documents and communications sent or received by EXPERIMAX and/or
EXPERIMAC to and/or from UFG relating to the power adapter known as the “MagSafe Power
Adapter.”
RESPONSE: Attached.
6. All documents, including financial records, relating to estimated capital needed for
an EXPERIMAC franchisee to “get [its] store up and running” in years 2013, 2014, 2015, and/or
2016.
RESPONSE: Attached. See Response No. 3.
7. All documents, including all financial information and all documents recording,
referring, or relating to expected and/or anticipated profits of EXPERIMAC stores provided by
EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to any Defendant at EXPERIMAC’s March 10, 2016
“Discovery Day in West Palm Beach.”
RESPONSE: None.
8. All documents, including all financial information and all documents relating to
expected and/or anticipated profits of EXPERIMAC stores, provided by EXPERIMAC and/or
UFG to any non-party to this action at EXPERIMAC’s March 10, 2016 “Discovery Day in West
Palm Beach.”
RESPONSE: None.9. All deeds, leases, contracts, mortgages, and/or promissory notes relating to any
warehouse in North Carolina used by or intended to be used by EXPERIMAC, EXPERIMAX,
and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020.
RESPONSE: Objection.
10. All documents for years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020
relating to inventory kept, maintained, owned, stored, and/or placed, or intended to be kept,
maintained, owned, stored, and/or placed, by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG at any
warehouse located in North Carolina.
RESPONSE: Objection.
11. All communications between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG on the
one hand and any Defendant on the other hand relating to any warehouse in North Carolina used
by or intended to be used by EXPERIMAC, EXPERIMAX, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014,
2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020.
RESPONSE: None.
12. All communications between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG on the
one hand and any franchisee of EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC other than Defendants on the
other hand relating to any warehouse in North Carolina used by or intended to be used by
EXPERIMAC, EXPERIMAX, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018,
2019, and/or 2020.
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since
communications between Experimax, Experimac, and/or UFG on the one hand and any franchiseeof Experimax and/or Experimac other than Defendants on the other hand relating to any warehouse
in North Carolina used by or intended to be used by Experimax, Experimac, and/or UFG during
years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020 concern franchisees that are not
parties to the lawsuit, and time periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly,
the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide
documents connected to the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees.
13. All internal documents, communications, and/or meeting minutes of
EXPERIMAC, EXPERIMAX, and/or UFG relating to the opening, closing, cancellation of use of,
and/or termination of use of any warehouse in North Carolina used by or intended to be used by
EXPERIMAC, EXPERIMAX, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018,
2019, and/or 2020.
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent that the request for
All internal documents, communications, and/or meeting minutes of Experimac, Experimax,
and/or UFG relating to the opening, closing, cancellation of use of, and/or termination of use of
any warehouse in North Carolina used by or intended to be used by Experimac, Experimax, and/or
UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020 is overbroad and vague.
The search would encompass every document or email created related to the warehouse without
limitation. Experimax would be required to produce all documents related to the warehouse even
though such an unduly burdensome search and review would not be relevant to the claims at issue
in this case.
14. All contracts or agreements between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG
and the United States Postal Service, commonly known as USPS, United Parcel Service of
America, Inc., commonly known as UPS, FedEx Corporation, commonly known as FedEx,Deutsche Post, commonly known as DHL, or other similar carrier or provider of or for mailing,
shipping, or delivery services, relating to inventory for EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC stores
for years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020.’
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it
requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an
improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that
Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax
franchisees.
15. All records of inventory sold by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to
EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC stores and/or franchisees for years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016,
2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020.
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it
requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an
improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that
Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax
franchisees.
16. All documents, including purchase orders, relating to requests made by any
EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC store and/or franchisee to purchase inventory fromEXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG for years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019,
and 2020.
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it
requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an
improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that
Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax
franchisees.
17. All documents showing revenue of any EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC store
for years 2013, 2014, 2015, and/or 2016.
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it
requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an
improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that
Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax
franchisees.
18. All documents showing expected and/or anticipated profits of amy EXPERIMAX
and/or EXPERIMAC store for years 2013, 2014, 2015, and/or 2016.
RESPONSE: None.
19. All documents containing sales and/or revenue projections provided by
EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to any Defendant.RESPONSE: None.
20. All documents containing sales and/or revenue projections provided by
EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to any potential or actual franchisee of EXPERIMAX
and/or EXPERIMAC other than Defendants during years 2013, 2014, 2015, and/or 2016.
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it
requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an
improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that
Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax
franchisees.
21. For the time period June 23, 2016 through December 31, 2021, all documents,
reports, ledgers, and/or itemizations relating to the profitability of any EXPERIMAX and/or
EXPERIMAC store.
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it
requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an
improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that
Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax
franchisees.
22. Copies of all written or electronic communications, letters and other
correspondence, memoranda, facsimiles, notices, notes, telegrams, text messages, e-mails, letters,voice-mail messages, SMS text messages and other text or instant messages exchanged using other
applications, such as Yahoo! Messenger, Bloomberg messaging services, WhatsApp or Signal,
between EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC on the one hand and any of UFG, HEALTH CLUB
EXPERTS.COM,LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT, or Paul Bosley on the other hand
that relate to any of the Defendants.
RESPONSE: Attached.
23. All recordings of telephone calls, conference calls, or meetings, including virtual
calls or meetings conducted via the Zoom platform or other similar platform provided by a
different vendor of such services, between EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC on the one hand
and any of UFG, HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT,
or Paul Bosley on the other hand that relate to any of the Defendants.
RESPONSE: None.
24. All records of commissions paid by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG
during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020 to HEALTH CLUB
EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT and/or Paul Bosley relating to any
franchise of either EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC.
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it
requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an
improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that
Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax
franchisees.
1025. All contracts between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG on the one hand
and HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT and/or Paul
Bosley on the other hand relating to EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or to any EXPERIMAX
and/or EXPERIMAC franchisee.
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since all
contracts between Experimax, Experimac, and/or UFG on the one hand and HEALTH CLUB
EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT and/or Paul Bosley on the other hand
relating to Experimax, Experimac, and/or to any Experimax and/or Experimac franchisee concerns
franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated Defendants’ store, and time
periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the request is unduly
burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents connected to the
hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees.
26. All documents and communications, including financial records, provided by
EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018,
2019, and/or 2020 to HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE
DEPOT and/or Paul Bosley relating to revenues of franchises of EXPERIMAX and/or
EXPERIMAC other than Defendants.
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since all
documents and communications, including financial records, provided by EXPERIMAX,
11EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020
to HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT and/or Paul
Bosley relating to revenues of franchises of Experimax and/or Experimac other than Defendants
concerns franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated Defendants’ store, and
time periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the request is unduly
burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents connected to the
hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees.
27. All lists, records, reports, ledgers, and/or itemizations of EXPERIMAX and/or
EXPERIMAC franchisees that received loans funded in whole or in part by the U.S. Small
Business Administration.
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since all lists,
records, reports, ledgers, and/or itemizations of Experimax and/or Experimac franchisees that
received loans funded in whole or in part by the U.S. Small Business Administration concerns
franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated Defendants’ store, and time
periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the request is unduly
burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents connected to the
hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees.
28. — All documents and communications, including financial records, received from
HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT and/or Paul Bosley
relating to revenues of franchises of EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC during years 2013, 2014,
2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020.
12RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since all
documents and communications, including financial records, received from HEALTH CLUB
EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT and/or Paul Bosley relating to
revenues of franchises of Experimax and/or Experimac during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017,
2018, 2019, and/or 2020 concerns franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated
Defendants’ store, and time periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the
request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents
connected to the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees.
29. Images of the internet webpage https://experimax.com/locations.php as it existed
on the fifteenth day of each month of the year 2020.
RESPONSE: None in Experimax’s possession, custody, and/or control however
https://web.archive.org/web/20200901000000*/https://experimax.com/locations.php —_ provides
screen captures of the request webpage on the 15"" day for the months of January, February, and
August as well as other days during the year 2020. Attached the screen captures from January,
February, and August referenced earlier.
30. All contracts and/or agreements between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or
UFG and DRPHONEFIX, INC. relating to the joining of EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC with
DRPHONEFIX, INC.
RESPONSE: None.
31. All documents provided by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to
DRPHONEFIX, INC. relating to any Defendant.
13RESPONSE: None.
32. Copies of all notices, text messages, e-mails, letters, voicemails, SMS text
messages, and other text messages exchanged using other applications, such as Yahoo! Messenger
or WhatsApp or Signal, between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG on the one hand and
DRPHONEFIX, INC. on the other hand that relate to any Defendant.
RESPONSE: None.
33. All recordings of telephone calls, conference calls, or meetings, including virtual
calls or meetings conducted via the Zoom platform or other similar platform or vendor, between
EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG on the one hand, and DRPHONEFIX, INC. on the
other hand during which any Defendant was discussed, named, referred to, and/or mentioned.
RESPONSE: None.
34. All communications between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG on the
one hand, and DAS Group and/or Bright Red Agency on the other hand relating to any Defendant.
RESPONSE: Attached.
35. All documents EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG submitted to and/or
received from the Unites States Copyright Office relating to registration of and/or renewal of
copyrights owned or used or claimed by EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC.
RESPONSE: Attached.
36. — All documents EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG submitted to and/or
received from the Unites States Patent and Trademark Office relating to registration of and/or
renewal of trademarks and/or trade names owned or used or claimed by EXPERIMAX and/or
EXPERIMAC.
RESPONSE: Attached.
1437. All documents relating to due diligence performed by EXPERIMAC and/or UFG
concerning trademarks and/or trade names owned or used or claimed by EXPERIMAC.
RESPONSE: None.
38. All documents provided by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to any
Defendant relating to any demand, complaint, proceeding, settlement, and/or action between
EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC on the one hand and Apple Inc. and/or any other entity with
the term “Apple” in its name on the other hand.
RESPONSE: None.
39. All documents provided by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to any
Defendant relating to the power adapter known as the “MagSafe Power Adapter.”
RESPONSE: Attached.
40. Copies of all stock photographs of the power adapter known as the “MagSafe Power
Adapter” provided EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to any Defendant.
RESPONSE: None.
41. Copies of all licenses for all stock photographs of the power adapter known as the
“MagSafe Power Adapter.”
RESPONSE: None.
42. All records, pleadings, petitions, discovery documents, demands, notices, internal
documents, meeting minutes, and/or communications relating to any dispute, action, settlement,
and/or proceeding between EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC on the one hand and Apple Inc.
and/or any other entity with the term “Apple” in its name on the other hand, concerning use of the
term “mac” or the power adapter known as the “MagSafe Power Adapter.”
15RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since records,
pleadings, petitions, discovery documents, demands, notices, internal documents, meeting
minutes, and/or communications relating to any dispute, action, settlement, and/or proceeding
brought, filed, and/or initiated by Experimax and/or Experimac against any Experimax and/or
Experimac franchisee concems franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated
Defendants’ store, and time periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the
request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents
connected to the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees.
43. All documents and communications sent or received by EXPERIMAX and/or
EXPERIMAC to and/or from UFG relating to the power adapter known as the “MagSafe Power
Adapter.”
RESPONSE: Objection.
44. All records, pleadings, petitions, discovery documents, demands, notices, internal
documents, meeting minutes, and/or communications relating to any dispute, action, settlement,
and/or proceeding conceming The National Coalition of Associations of 7-Eleven Franchisees
and/or the Service Employees International Union on the one hand and EXPERIMAX and/or
EXPERIMAC on the other hand.
RESPONSE: None.
45. All records, pleadings, petitions, discovery documents, demands, notices, internal
documents, meeting minutes, and/or communications relating to any dispute, action, settlement,
16and/or proceeding brought, filed, and/or initiated by EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC against
any EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC franchisee.
RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests
documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as
overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since records,
pleadings, petitions, discovery documents, demands, notices, internal documents, meeting
minutes, and/or communications relating to any dispute, action, settlement, and/or proceeding
brought, filed, and/or initiated by Experimax and/or Experimac against any Experimax and/or
Experimac franchisee concems franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated
Defendants’ store, and time periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the
request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents
connected to the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished to Justin G.
Prociv, Esq., LAPIN & LEICHTLING, LLP, Counsel for Defendants, 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 600,
Coral Gables, Florida 33134 at JProciv@LL-lawfirm.com and Joel Kenwood, Esq., SACHS SAX
CAPLAN, 6111 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 200, Boca Raton, Florida 33487 at
jkenwood@ssclawfirm.com; mfayter@ssclawfirm.com on this December 5, 2021.
By: /Christian Dorismond
Christian Dorismond. Esq.
17Justin G. Prociv
From: Justin G. Prociv
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 6:02 PM
To: Mark Nichols; Christian Dorismond
Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB
Mark:
Defendants’ position is stated in full in the e-mails below. Please provide motion calendar dates either before or after
February 14, 2022, at plaintiff's option, and | will promptly respond with my availability.
Thank you,
Justin G. Prociv &®
Lapin & Leichtling, LLP
ae LaPINe EXHIBIT 3
memm™ — LEICHTLING
Direct. (305) 569 4113
Fax. (305) 569 0000
jprociv@:LL lawfirm.com
www.LL lawfirm.com
****PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR NEW CORAL GABLES SUITE NUMBER IS SUITE 600****
The information contained in this email message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of
the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error and
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify
jprociv@LL-lawfirm.com immediately by return email and permanently delete the copy you received. Thank you.
From: Mark Nichols
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 5:57 PM
To: Christian Dorismond ; Justin G. Prociv
Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB
Justin-
Candidly, | do not understand your position below. | fail to see the legal relevance of the APA in a motion to amend a
complaint which asks the Court to dismiss, not add, a claim. Please go ahead and file a response if you feel it’s
necessary, and we can resolve this during our hearing on February 14" (unless you are available for a UMC in advance of
that date, and we can schedule something earlier).
-Mark
Mark D. Nichols
General CounselUnited Franchise Group
A group of affiliated companies and brands
"The Global Leader for Entrepreneurs"
2121 Vista Parkway
West Palm Beach, FL 33411
(561) 868-1453 Office
(561) 225-4536 Mobile
Our Mission Statement:
We have one customer: our franchisee. When they are successful, we are successful.
Our Purpose:
We encourage and help people become successful entrepreneurs, to enhance their lives and the communities around
them.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this
message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by
the transmission of this message.
From: Justin G. Prociv
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 12:26 PM
To: Christian Dorismond
Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB
Christian:
| cannot blindly determine or even guess what the subject matter of or sections or paragraphs or content of the alleged
asset purchase agreement is, or what parts may or may not be applicable to plaintiff's Amended Motion, without seeing
the agreement. | do not object to reviewing a partially redacted copy of the asset purchase agreement, but defendants
reserve the right to request an unredacted copy or less redacted copy if redactions unilaterally made by plaintiff redact
information relevant to or apparently relevant to plaintiff's Amended Motion.
Thank you,
Justin G. Prociv &®
Lapin & Leichtling, LLP
255 Alhambra Circle L A P | N &
Suite 600
Ph 08) 509.4113 LEICHTLING
Direct. (305) 569 4113Fax. (305) 569 0000
iprociv@LL lawfirm.com
www.LL lawfirm.com
****PT EASE NOTE THAT OUR NEW CORAL GABLES SUITE NUMBER IS SUITE 600****
The information contained in this email message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of
the recij it(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error and
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify
jprociv@LL-lawfirm.com immediately by return email and permanently delete the copy you received. Thank you.
From: Christian Dorismond
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 12:19 PM
To: Justin G. Prociv
Subject: Re: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB
Is there any specific sections that you would want to see if a redacted version was provided in the meantime?
Kindest regards,
Christian C. Dorismond
Staff Attorney
United Franchise Group
Agroup of affiliated companies and brands
"The Global Leader for Entrepreneurs"
2121 Vista Parkway
West Palm Beach, FL 33411
(561) 868-6793 Office
Our Mission Statement:
We have one customer: our franchisee. When they are successful, we are successful.
Our Purpose:
We encourage and help people become successful entrepreneurs, to enhance their lives and the communities around
them.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this
message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by
the transmission of this message.
From: Christian Dorismond
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 12:18:00 PMTo: Justin G. Prociv
Subject: Re: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB
Thanks Justin. Will share your response and discuss with the team.
Kindest regards,
Christian C. Dorismond
Staff Attorney
United Franchise Group
A group of affiliated companies and brands
"The Global Leader for Entrepreneurs"
2121 Vista Parkway
West Palm Beach, FL 33411
(561) 868-6793 Office
Our Mission Statement:
We have one customer: our franchisee. When they are successful, we are successful.
Our Purpose:
We encourage and help people become successful entrepreneurs, to enhance their lives and the communities around
them.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this
message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by
the transmission of this message.
From: Justin G. Prociv
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 12:16:53 PM
To: Christian Dorismond
Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB
Christian:
The asset purchase agreement alleged in plaintiff's Amended Motion bears on whether it is futile for plaintiff to file any
new pleading alleging any claim under the franchise agreement at issue, whether for damages, in whole or in part,
injunctive relief, or otherwise.
Thank you,Justin G. Prociv w®
Lapin & Leichtling, LLP
255 Alhambra Circle A N
Suite 600 L P | &
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Ph. (305) 569 4113 LEICHTLI NG
Direct. (305) 569 4113
Fax. (305) 569 0000
jprociv@LL lawfirm.com
www.LL lawfirm.com
****PT EASE NOTE THAT OUR NEW CORAL GABLES SUITE NUMBER IS SUITE 600****
The information contained in this email message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of
the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error and
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify
jprociv@LL-lawfirm.com immediately by return email and permanently delete the copy you received. Thank you.
From: Christian Dorismond
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 9:13 AM
To: Justin G. Prociv
Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB
Justin,
Good morning. With respect to the Asset Purchase Agreement, Experimax is not inclined to provide the agreement as
we do not believe it is relevant to the claims at issue. However, to better understand your need to review the APA and
whether our present position should change, can you explain the relevance as to this motion?
Kindest regards,
Christian
Christian C. Dorismond
Staff Attorney
United Franchise Group
A group of affiliated companies and brands
"The Global Leader for Entrepreneurs"
2121 Vista Parkway
West Palm Beach, FL 33411
(561) 868-6793 Office
Our Mission Statement:
We have one customer: our franchisee. When they are successful, we are successful.
5Our Purpose:
We encourage and help people become successful entrepreneurs, to enhance their lives and the communities around
them.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this
message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by
the transmission of this message.
From: Justin G. Prociv
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:25 PM
To: Christian Dorismond
Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB
Christian:
This e-mail relates to plaintiff's amended motion for leave to file second amended complaint, filed January 12, 2022
(“Amended Motion”).
Paragraph 33 of plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint attached to the Amended Motion alleges:
“Upon information and belief, prior to the termination of the Franchise Agreement and as of the date of this pleading,
Franchisees were operating a competitive business...” (Am. Mot. Ex. A at 134 (emphasis added).)
This allegation conflicts with your January 12, 2022 e-mail below. For this reason, defendants object to the Motion.
In addition, defendants cannot determine whether to object to the Motion without reviewing the “asset purchase
agreement” alleged in paragraph 3 of the Motion. Please also provide a copy of the “asset purchase agreement” alleged
in paragraph 3 of the Motion.
Finally, paragraph 34 of plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint alleges thirty-four prior paragraphs. There are
now only thirty-three prior paragraphs.
Thank you,
Justin G. Prociv
Lapin & Leichtling, LLP
255. a Circle L A P | N &
Ph. 05) 5604113 LEICHTLING
Direct. (305) 569 4113
Fax. (305) 569 0000
jprociv@LL lawfirm.com
www.LL lawfirm.com
****PT EASE NOTE THAT OUR NEW CORAL GABLES SUITE NUMBER IS SUITE 600****
The information contained in this email message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of
the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error andany review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify
jprociv@LL-lawfirm.com immediately by return email and permanently delete the copy you received. Thank you.
From: Christian Dorismond
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 6:28 PM
To: Justin G. Prociv
Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB
Good evening Justin,
¢ Filed the amended motion.
e |have removed the request for injunctive relief in the Second Amended Complaint.
e Paragraph 32 was a placeholder in case Experimax chose to terminate your clients. Experimax still contends that
they were not terminated. | failed to remove the paragraph prior to filing.
After reviewing the amended motion, please let me know if you have any objections to the motion. If not, | can draft an
order for the court.
Kindest regards,
Christian
Christian C. Dorismond
Staff Attorney
United Franchise Group
Agroup of affiliated companies and brands
"The Global Leader for Entrepreneurs"
2121 Vista Parkway
West Palm Beach, FL 33411
(561) 868-6793 Office
Our Mission Statement:
We have one customer: our franchisee. When they are successful, we are successful.
Our Purpose:
We encourage and help people become successful entrepreneurs, to enhance their lives and the communities around
them.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this
message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by
the transmission of this message.From: Justin G. Prociv
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 6:35 PM
To: Christian Dorismond ; Mark Nichols
Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB
Christian:
This e-mail relates to plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint, filed January 11, 2022 (“Motion”).
Among other things, the Motion states plaintiff “does not have the legal authority to seek injunctive relief...” (Mot. 914.)
Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint, however, states this action is “for monetary damages [and] injunctive
relief...” (Mot. Ex. Aat 1 (emphasis added).)
In addition, plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint alleges. “The Franchise Agreement was terminated on
December 20, 2021. A copy of the Termination Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit G.” (Mot. Ex. A 933.) Exhibit G to
plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint, however, is not a letter.
Finally, plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint alleges. “A screen shot from the website is attached hereto as
Exhibit H.” (Mot. Ex. A 134.) However, there is no “Exhibit H” attached to plaintiff's proposed second amended
complaint. (See Mot. Ex. A.)
Please serve an amended Motion with a corrected copy of plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint and its
Exhibits.
Thank you,
Justin G. Prociv ®
Lapin & Leichtling, LLP
259 Alhambra Circle L A Pl N &
Ph. (305) 5694113 LEICHTLING
Direct. (305) 569 4113
Fax. (305) 569 0000
jprociv@LL lawfirm.com
www.LL lawfirm.com
****PT EASE NOTE THAT OUR NEW CORAL GABLES SUITE NUMBER IS SUITE 600****
The information contained in this email message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of
the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error and
any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify
jprociv@LL-lawfirm.com immediately by return email and permanently delete the copy you received. Thank you.
Preview
Filing # 143587435 E-Filed 02/09/2022 12:07:56 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH, FLORIDA. CASE NO.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFERY SIEPIERSKI; GINA FONTANA-SIEPIERSKI; and, BLUTUSK TECH, LLC, Defendants. / JEFFERY SIEPIERSKI; GINA FONTANA-SIEPIERSKI; and, BLUTUSK TECH, LLC, Counter and Third-Party Plaintiffs, vs. EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC; EXPERIMAC FRANCHISING, LLC; UFG GROUP, INC. d/b/a UNITED FRANCHISE GROUP; and, HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM,LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT, Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendants. / FRANCHISEES’ MOTION TO COMPEL Counter and third-party plaintiffs JEFFERY SIEPIERSKI, GINA FONTANA- SIEPIERSKI, and BLUTUSK TECH, LLC (together, “Franchisees”), pursuant to Rules 1.340 and 1.380 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby file their motion to compel production of plaintiff EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC’s (“ExperiMAX”) August 20, 2021 asset purchase agreement, which ExperiMAX willfully misrepresented in discovery does not exist, and state: 1 LAPIN & LEICHTLING, LLP, 255 ALHAMBRA CIRCLE, SUITE 600, CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33134 (305) 569-4100 *** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 02/09/2022 12:07:56 PM ***CASE NO.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB ARGUMENT 1. On June 25, 2021, Franchisees served, among other things, their defenses to ExperiMAX’s amended complaint. (Answer and Defenses, filed June 25, 2021 (“Defenses”).) 2. Among other defenses, Franchisees allege that ExperiMAX lacks standing to prosecute this action. (Defenses 36 at “Ninth.”)! See Glynn v. First Nat’l Bank, 912 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“There is no question that lack of standing is an affirmative defense that must be raised by the defendant and that the failure to raise it generally results in waiver.”) (internal quotes and citation omitted). 3. In August 2021 ExperiMAX announced it had in fact “joined with” a different company, DRPHONEFIX INC. n/k/a TECHY: De PEt ae et Rona ed a eid We are happy to announce the joining of our twe companies into one big team and hted for the Experimax team to join the Techy team. DrPhoneFix has been ss for 14 years and as of last year, we rebranded to TECHY. This has helped us immensely to make our customers aware that we do all electronic repairs, home installs, wrote:Hello to all Experimax Franchise Owners EUs Mite et eae) We are happy to announce the joining of our two companies into one big team and are delighted for the Experimax team to join the Techy team. DrPhoneFix has been in business for 14 years and as of last year, we rebranded to TECHY. This has helped us immensely to make our customers aware that we do all electronic repairs, home installs, sell devices and sell electronic accessories. We want to make this transition as smooth as possible with the help of our Techy team and also, the Experimax team. With the knowledge of both our companies, we have the expectation set to reach new heights in the technology industry together and become one of the leading electronic repairs and install companies. We look forward to meeting everyone and expanding our Techy brand to everyone around the world. Best Regards, Bill Daragan CEO & Founder TECHY By DrPhoneFix | 3000 SW 4th Ave , Fort Lauderdale , FL 33315 Unsubscribe mark. shor@experimax.comUpdate Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by franchise@drphonefix.com powered by Try email marketing for free today!IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC, CASE NO: 502021CA001626XXXXMB Plaintiff, DIVISION: AO vs. JEFFERY SIEPIERSKI, GINA FONTANA- SIEPIERSKI, and BLUTUSK TECH, LLC, Defendants. JEFFERY SIEPIERSKI; GINA FONTANA- SIEPIERSKI; and, BLUTUSK TECH, LLC, EX H | B | I J ) Counter-Plaintiffs, vs. EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC; EXPERIMAC FRANCHISING, LLC; UFG GROUP, INC. d/b/a UNITED FRANCHISE GROUP; and, HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT, Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendants. / PLAINTIFF EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS CONCERNING COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIM Plaintiff, EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC (“Experimax”), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby serves its responses and objections to Defendants’ request for production concerning allegations contained in in defendants’ counterclaim and third-party claim. Dated: December 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted, By: /Christian Dorismond Mark D. Nichols, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 056580mnichols@ufgcorp.com Christian Dorismond, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 10125387 cdorismond@ufgcorp.com EXPERIMAX FRANCHISING, LLC 2121 Vista Parkway West Palm Beach, FL 33411 Tel: (561) 868 -1453 Counsel for Experimax Franchising, LLCRESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS 1. All communications and documents sent by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to and/or received from Celtic Bank and/or Celtic Bank Corporation relating to any Defendant and/or to any loan given by Celtic Bank and/or Celtic Bank Corporation to any Defendant. RESPONSE: Attached. 2. All documents relating to sales of EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC franchises from June 23, 2013 through December 31, 2020 in which UFG acted as broker and/or provided brokerage services to, for, or on behalf of the seller of any EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC franchise. RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since documents relating to sales of EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC franchises from June 23, 2013 through December 31, 2020 in which UFG acted as broker and/or provided brokerage services to, for, or on behalf of the seller of any EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC franchise concem franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated Defendants’ store, and time periods before and after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents connected to the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 3. All public franchise disclosure documents of EXPERIMAC and/or EXPERIMAX issued by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG for, during, or in years 2013, 2014, 2015, and/or 2016.RESPONSE: Attached. 4. All documents, including financial records, supporting EXPERIMAC’s claim on its website in 2016 that “Franchisees should expect to spend about $136,000 to $277,000 to get their store up and running....” RESPONSE: Attached. See Response No. 3. 5. All documents and communications sent or received by EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC to and/or from UFG relating to the power adapter known as the “MagSafe Power Adapter.” RESPONSE: Attached. 6. All documents, including financial records, relating to estimated capital needed for an EXPERIMAC franchisee to “get [its] store up and running” in years 2013, 2014, 2015, and/or 2016. RESPONSE: Attached. See Response No. 3. 7. All documents, including all financial information and all documents recording, referring, or relating to expected and/or anticipated profits of EXPERIMAC stores provided by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to any Defendant at EXPERIMAC’s March 10, 2016 “Discovery Day in West Palm Beach.” RESPONSE: None. 8. All documents, including all financial information and all documents relating to expected and/or anticipated profits of EXPERIMAC stores, provided by EXPERIMAC and/or UFG to any non-party to this action at EXPERIMAC’s March 10, 2016 “Discovery Day in West Palm Beach.” RESPONSE: None.9. All deeds, leases, contracts, mortgages, and/or promissory notes relating to any warehouse in North Carolina used by or intended to be used by EXPERIMAC, EXPERIMAX, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020. RESPONSE: Objection. 10. All documents for years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020 relating to inventory kept, maintained, owned, stored, and/or placed, or intended to be kept, maintained, owned, stored, and/or placed, by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG at any warehouse located in North Carolina. RESPONSE: Objection. 11. All communications between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG on the one hand and any Defendant on the other hand relating to any warehouse in North Carolina used by or intended to be used by EXPERIMAC, EXPERIMAX, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020. RESPONSE: None. 12. All communications between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG on the one hand and any franchisee of EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC other than Defendants on the other hand relating to any warehouse in North Carolina used by or intended to be used by EXPERIMAC, EXPERIMAX, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020. RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since communications between Experimax, Experimac, and/or UFG on the one hand and any franchiseeof Experimax and/or Experimac other than Defendants on the other hand relating to any warehouse in North Carolina used by or intended to be used by Experimax, Experimac, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020 concern franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, and time periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents connected to the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 13. All internal documents, communications, and/or meeting minutes of EXPERIMAC, EXPERIMAX, and/or UFG relating to the opening, closing, cancellation of use of, and/or termination of use of any warehouse in North Carolina used by or intended to be used by EXPERIMAC, EXPERIMAX, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020. RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent that the request for All internal documents, communications, and/or meeting minutes of Experimac, Experimax, and/or UFG relating to the opening, closing, cancellation of use of, and/or termination of use of any warehouse in North Carolina used by or intended to be used by Experimac, Experimax, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020 is overbroad and vague. The search would encompass every document or email created related to the warehouse without limitation. Experimax would be required to produce all documents related to the warehouse even though such an unduly burdensome search and review would not be relevant to the claims at issue in this case. 14. All contracts or agreements between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG and the United States Postal Service, commonly known as USPS, United Parcel Service of America, Inc., commonly known as UPS, FedEx Corporation, commonly known as FedEx,Deutsche Post, commonly known as DHL, or other similar carrier or provider of or for mailing, shipping, or delivery services, relating to inventory for EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC stores for years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020.’ RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 15. All records of inventory sold by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC stores and/or franchisees for years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020. RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 16. All documents, including purchase orders, relating to requests made by any EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC store and/or franchisee to purchase inventory fromEXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG for years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 17. All documents showing revenue of any EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC store for years 2013, 2014, 2015, and/or 2016. RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 18. All documents showing expected and/or anticipated profits of amy EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC store for years 2013, 2014, 2015, and/or 2016. RESPONSE: None. 19. All documents containing sales and/or revenue projections provided by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to any Defendant.RESPONSE: None. 20. All documents containing sales and/or revenue projections provided by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to any potential or actual franchisee of EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC other than Defendants during years 2013, 2014, 2015, and/or 2016. RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 21. For the time period June 23, 2016 through December 31, 2021, all documents, reports, ledgers, and/or itemizations relating to the profitability of any EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC store. RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 22. Copies of all written or electronic communications, letters and other correspondence, memoranda, facsimiles, notices, notes, telegrams, text messages, e-mails, letters,voice-mail messages, SMS text messages and other text or instant messages exchanged using other applications, such as Yahoo! Messenger, Bloomberg messaging services, WhatsApp or Signal, between EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC on the one hand and any of UFG, HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM,LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT, or Paul Bosley on the other hand that relate to any of the Defendants. RESPONSE: Attached. 23. All recordings of telephone calls, conference calls, or meetings, including virtual calls or meetings conducted via the Zoom platform or other similar platform provided by a different vendor of such services, between EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC on the one hand and any of UFG, HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT, or Paul Bosley on the other hand that relate to any of the Defendants. RESPONSE: None. 24. All records of commissions paid by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020 to HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT and/or Paul Bosley relating to any franchise of either EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC. RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since it requests documents related to the parties that are not parties to the lawsuit and amounts to an improper fishing expedition. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents for the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 1025. All contracts between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG on the one hand and HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT and/or Paul Bosley on the other hand relating to EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or to any EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC franchisee. RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since all contracts between Experimax, Experimac, and/or UFG on the one hand and HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT and/or Paul Bosley on the other hand relating to Experimax, Experimac, and/or to any Experimax and/or Experimac franchisee concerns franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated Defendants’ store, and time periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents connected to the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 26. All documents and communications, including financial records, provided by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020 to HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT and/or Paul Bosley relating to revenues of franchises of EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC other than Defendants. RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since all documents and communications, including financial records, provided by EXPERIMAX, 11EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020 to HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT and/or Paul Bosley relating to revenues of franchises of Experimax and/or Experimac other than Defendants concerns franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated Defendants’ store, and time periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents connected to the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 27. All lists, records, reports, ledgers, and/or itemizations of EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC franchisees that received loans funded in whole or in part by the U.S. Small Business Administration. RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since all lists, records, reports, ledgers, and/or itemizations of Experimax and/or Experimac franchisees that received loans funded in whole or in part by the U.S. Small Business Administration concerns franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated Defendants’ store, and time periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents connected to the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 28. — All documents and communications, including financial records, received from HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT and/or Paul Bosley relating to revenues of franchises of EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020. 12RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since all documents and communications, including financial records, received from HEALTH CLUB EXPERTS.COM, LLC d/b/a BUSINESS FINANCE DEPOT and/or Paul Bosley relating to revenues of franchises of Experimax and/or Experimac during years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and/or 2020 concerns franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated Defendants’ store, and time periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents connected to the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 29. Images of the internet webpage https://experimax.com/locations.php as it existed on the fifteenth day of each month of the year 2020. RESPONSE: None in Experimax’s possession, custody, and/or control however https://web.archive.org/web/20200901000000*/https://experimax.com/locations.php —_ provides screen captures of the request webpage on the 15"" day for the months of January, February, and August as well as other days during the year 2020. Attached the screen captures from January, February, and August referenced earlier. 30. All contracts and/or agreements between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG and DRPHONEFIX, INC. relating to the joining of EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC with DRPHONEFIX, INC. RESPONSE: None. 31. All documents provided by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to DRPHONEFIX, INC. relating to any Defendant. 13RESPONSE: None. 32. Copies of all notices, text messages, e-mails, letters, voicemails, SMS text messages, and other text messages exchanged using other applications, such as Yahoo! Messenger or WhatsApp or Signal, between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG on the one hand and DRPHONEFIX, INC. on the other hand that relate to any Defendant. RESPONSE: None. 33. All recordings of telephone calls, conference calls, or meetings, including virtual calls or meetings conducted via the Zoom platform or other similar platform or vendor, between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG on the one hand, and DRPHONEFIX, INC. on the other hand during which any Defendant was discussed, named, referred to, and/or mentioned. RESPONSE: None. 34. All communications between EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG on the one hand, and DAS Group and/or Bright Red Agency on the other hand relating to any Defendant. RESPONSE: Attached. 35. All documents EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG submitted to and/or received from the Unites States Copyright Office relating to registration of and/or renewal of copyrights owned or used or claimed by EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC. RESPONSE: Attached. 36. — All documents EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG submitted to and/or received from the Unites States Patent and Trademark Office relating to registration of and/or renewal of trademarks and/or trade names owned or used or claimed by EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC. RESPONSE: Attached. 1437. All documents relating to due diligence performed by EXPERIMAC and/or UFG concerning trademarks and/or trade names owned or used or claimed by EXPERIMAC. RESPONSE: None. 38. All documents provided by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to any Defendant relating to any demand, complaint, proceeding, settlement, and/or action between EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC on the one hand and Apple Inc. and/or any other entity with the term “Apple” in its name on the other hand. RESPONSE: None. 39. All documents provided by EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to any Defendant relating to the power adapter known as the “MagSafe Power Adapter.” RESPONSE: Attached. 40. Copies of all stock photographs of the power adapter known as the “MagSafe Power Adapter” provided EXPERIMAX, EXPERIMAC, and/or UFG to any Defendant. RESPONSE: None. 41. Copies of all licenses for all stock photographs of the power adapter known as the “MagSafe Power Adapter.” RESPONSE: None. 42. All records, pleadings, petitions, discovery documents, demands, notices, internal documents, meeting minutes, and/or communications relating to any dispute, action, settlement, and/or proceeding between EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC on the one hand and Apple Inc. and/or any other entity with the term “Apple” in its name on the other hand, concerning use of the term “mac” or the power adapter known as the “MagSafe Power Adapter.” 15RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since records, pleadings, petitions, discovery documents, demands, notices, internal documents, meeting minutes, and/or communications relating to any dispute, action, settlement, and/or proceeding brought, filed, and/or initiated by Experimax and/or Experimac against any Experimax and/or Experimac franchisee concems franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated Defendants’ store, and time periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents connected to the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. 43. All documents and communications sent or received by EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC to and/or from UFG relating to the power adapter known as the “MagSafe Power Adapter.” RESPONSE: Objection. 44. All records, pleadings, petitions, discovery documents, demands, notices, internal documents, meeting minutes, and/or communications relating to any dispute, action, settlement, and/or proceeding conceming The National Coalition of Associations of 7-Eleven Franchisees and/or the Service Employees International Union on the one hand and EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC on the other hand. RESPONSE: None. 45. All records, pleadings, petitions, discovery documents, demands, notices, internal documents, meeting minutes, and/or communications relating to any dispute, action, settlement, 16and/or proceeding brought, filed, and/or initiated by EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC against any EXPERIMAX and/or EXPERIMAC franchisee. RESPONSE: Objection. Experimax objects to the request to the extent it requests documents provided by Experimac and UFG. Experimax further objects to the request as overbroad and not relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence since records, pleadings, petitions, discovery documents, demands, notices, internal documents, meeting minutes, and/or communications relating to any dispute, action, settlement, and/or proceeding brought, filed, and/or initiated by Experimax and/or Experimac against any Experimax and/or Experimac franchisee concems franchisees that are not parties to the lawsuit, locations unrelated Defendants’ store, and time periods after Defendants signed the Franchise Agreement. Lastly, the request is unduly burdensome in that it requests that Experimax search for and provide documents connected to the hundreds of Experimac and Experimax franchisees. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished to Justin G. Prociv, Esq., LAPIN & LEICHTLING, LLP, Counsel for Defendants, 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 600, Coral Gables, Florida 33134 at JProciv@LL-lawfirm.com and Joel Kenwood, Esq., SACHS SAX CAPLAN, 6111 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 200, Boca Raton, Florida 33487 at jkenwood@ssclawfirm.com; mfayter@ssclawfirm.com on this December 5, 2021. By: /Christian Dorismond Christian Dorismond. Esq. 17Justin G. Prociv From: Justin G. Prociv Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 6:02 PM To: Mark Nichols; Christian Dorismond Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB Mark: Defendants’ position is stated in full in the e-mails below. Please provide motion calendar dates either before or after February 14, 2022, at plaintiff's option, and | will promptly respond with my availability. Thank you, Justin G. Prociv &® Lapin & Leichtling, LLP ae LaPINe EXHIBIT 3 memm™ — LEICHTLING Direct. (305) 569 4113 Fax. (305) 569 0000 jprociv@:LL lawfirm.com www.LL lawfirm.com ****PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR NEW CORAL GABLES SUITE NUMBER IS SUITE 600**** The information contained in this email message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify jprociv@LL-lawfirm.com immediately by return email and permanently delete the copy you received. Thank you. From: Mark Nichols Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 5:57 PM To: Christian Dorismond ; Justin G. Prociv Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB Justin- Candidly, | do not understand your position below. | fail to see the legal relevance of the APA in a motion to amend a complaint which asks the Court to dismiss, not add, a claim. Please go ahead and file a response if you feel it’s necessary, and we can resolve this during our hearing on February 14" (unless you are available for a UMC in advance of that date, and we can schedule something earlier). -Mark Mark D. Nichols General CounselUnited Franchise Group A group of affiliated companies and brands "The Global Leader for Entrepreneurs" 2121 Vista Parkway West Palm Beach, FL 33411 (561) 868-1453 Office (561) 225-4536 Mobile Our Mission Statement: We have one customer: our franchisee. When they are successful, we are successful. Our Purpose: We encourage and help people become successful entrepreneurs, to enhance their lives and the communities around them. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. From: Justin G. Prociv Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 12:26 PM To: Christian Dorismond Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB Christian: | cannot blindly determine or even guess what the subject matter of or sections or paragraphs or content of the alleged asset purchase agreement is, or what parts may or may not be applicable to plaintiff's Amended Motion, without seeing the agreement. | do not object to reviewing a partially redacted copy of the asset purchase agreement, but defendants reserve the right to request an unredacted copy or less redacted copy if redactions unilaterally made by plaintiff redact information relevant to or apparently relevant to plaintiff's Amended Motion. Thank you, Justin G. Prociv &® Lapin & Leichtling, LLP 255 Alhambra Circle L A P | N & Suite 600 Ph 08) 509.4113 LEICHTLING Direct. (305) 569 4113Fax. (305) 569 0000 iprociv@LL lawfirm.com www.LL lawfirm.com ****PT EASE NOTE THAT OUR NEW CORAL GABLES SUITE NUMBER IS SUITE 600**** The information contained in this email message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the recij it(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify jprociv@LL-lawfirm.com immediately by return email and permanently delete the copy you received. Thank you. From: Christian Dorismond Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 12:19 PM To: Justin G. Prociv Subject: Re: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB Is there any specific sections that you would want to see if a redacted version was provided in the meantime? Kindest regards, Christian C. Dorismond Staff Attorney United Franchise Group Agroup of affiliated companies and brands "The Global Leader for Entrepreneurs" 2121 Vista Parkway West Palm Beach, FL 33411 (561) 868-6793 Office Our Mission Statement: We have one customer: our franchisee. When they are successful, we are successful. Our Purpose: We encourage and help people become successful entrepreneurs, to enhance their lives and the communities around them. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. From: Christian Dorismond Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 12:18:00 PMTo: Justin G. Prociv Subject: Re: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB Thanks Justin. Will share your response and discuss with the team. Kindest regards, Christian C. Dorismond Staff Attorney United Franchise Group A group of affiliated companies and brands "The Global Leader for Entrepreneurs" 2121 Vista Parkway West Palm Beach, FL 33411 (561) 868-6793 Office Our Mission Statement: We have one customer: our franchisee. When they are successful, we are successful. Our Purpose: We encourage and help people become successful entrepreneurs, to enhance their lives and the communities around them. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. From: Justin G. Prociv Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 12:16:53 PM To: Christian Dorismond Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB Christian: The asset purchase agreement alleged in plaintiff's Amended Motion bears on whether it is futile for plaintiff to file any new pleading alleging any claim under the franchise agreement at issue, whether for damages, in whole or in part, injunctive relief, or otherwise. Thank you,Justin G. Prociv w® Lapin & Leichtling, LLP 255 Alhambra Circle A N Suite 600 L P | & Coral Gables, FL 33134 Ph. (305) 569 4113 LEICHTLI NG Direct. (305) 569 4113 Fax. (305) 569 0000 jprociv@LL lawfirm.com www.LL lawfirm.com ****PT EASE NOTE THAT OUR NEW CORAL GABLES SUITE NUMBER IS SUITE 600**** The information contained in this email message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify jprociv@LL-lawfirm.com immediately by return email and permanently delete the copy you received. Thank you. From: Christian Dorismond Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 9:13 AM To: Justin G. Prociv Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB Justin, Good morning. With respect to the Asset Purchase Agreement, Experimax is not inclined to provide the agreement as we do not believe it is relevant to the claims at issue. However, to better understand your need to review the APA and whether our present position should change, can you explain the relevance as to this motion? Kindest regards, Christian Christian C. Dorismond Staff Attorney United Franchise Group A group of affiliated companies and brands "The Global Leader for Entrepreneurs" 2121 Vista Parkway West Palm Beach, FL 33411 (561) 868-6793 Office Our Mission Statement: We have one customer: our franchisee. When they are successful, we are successful. 5Our Purpose: We encourage and help people become successful entrepreneurs, to enhance their lives and the communities around them. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message. From: Justin G. Prociv Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:25 PM To: Christian Dorismond Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB Christian: This e-mail relates to plaintiff's amended motion for leave to file second amended complaint, filed January 12, 2022 (“Amended Motion”). Paragraph 33 of plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint attached to the Amended Motion alleges: “Upon information and belief, prior to the termination of the Franchise Agreement and as of the date of this pleading, Franchisees were operating a competitive business...” (Am. Mot. Ex. A at 134 (emphasis added).) This allegation conflicts with your January 12, 2022 e-mail below. For this reason, defendants object to the Motion. In addition, defendants cannot determine whether to object to the Motion without reviewing the “asset purchase agreement” alleged in paragraph 3 of the Motion. Please also provide a copy of the “asset purchase agreement” alleged in paragraph 3 of the Motion. Finally, paragraph 34 of plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint alleges thirty-four prior paragraphs. There are now only thirty-three prior paragraphs. Thank you, Justin G. Prociv Lapin & Leichtling, LLP 255. a Circle L A P | N & Ph. 05) 5604113 LEICHTLING Direct. (305) 569 4113 Fax. (305) 569 0000 jprociv@LL lawfirm.com www.LL lawfirm.com ****PT EASE NOTE THAT OUR NEW CORAL GABLES SUITE NUMBER IS SUITE 600**** The information contained in this email message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error andany review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify jprociv@LL-lawfirm.com immediately by return email and permanently delete the copy you received. Thank you. From: Christian Dorismond Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 6:28 PM To: Justin G. Prociv Subject: RE: [External] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB Good evening Justin, ¢ Filed the amended motion. e |have removed the request for injunctive relief in the Second Amended Complaint. e Paragraph 32 was a placeholder in case Experimax chose to terminate your clients. Experimax still contends that they were not terminated. | failed to remove the paragraph prior to filing. After reviewing the amended motion, please let me know if you have any objections to the motion. If not, | can draft an order for the court. Kindest regards, Christian Christian C. Dorismond Staff Attorney United Franchise Group Agroup of affiliated companies and brands "The Global Leader for Entrepreneurs" 2121 Vista Parkway West Palm Beach, FL 33411 (561) 868-6793 Office Our Mission Statement: We have one customer: our franchisee. When they are successful, we are successful. Our Purpose: We encourage and help people become successful entrepreneurs, to enhance their lives and the communities around them. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance upon this message. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.From: Justin G. Prociv Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 6:35 PM To: Christian Dorismond ; Mark Nichols Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Experimax v. Siepierski; CASE No.: 502021CA001626XXXXMB Christian: This e-mail relates to plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint, filed January 11, 2022 (“Motion”). Among other things, the Motion states plaintiff “does not have the legal authority to seek injunctive relief...” (Mot. 914.) Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint, however, states this action is “for monetary damages [and] injunctive relief...” (Mot. Ex. Aat 1 (emphasis added).) In addition, plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint alleges. “The Franchise Agreement was terminated on December 20, 2021. A copy of the Termination Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit G.” (Mot. Ex. A 933.) Exhibit G to plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint, however, is not a letter. Finally, plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint alleges. “A screen shot from the website is attached hereto as Exhibit H.” (Mot. Ex. A 134.) However, there is no “Exhibit H” attached to plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint. (See Mot. Ex. A.) Please serve an amended Motion with a corrected copy of plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint and its Exhibits. Thank you, Justin G. Prociv ® Lapin & Leichtling, LLP 259 Alhambra Circle L A Pl N & Ph. (305) 5694113 LEICHTLING Direct. (305) 569 4113 Fax. (305) 569 0000 jprociv@LL lawfirm.com www.LL lawfirm.com ****PT EASE NOTE THAT OUR NEW CORAL GABLES SUITE NUMBER IS SUITE 600**** The information contained in this email message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this email is not an intended recipient, you have received this email in error and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify jprociv@LL-lawfirm.com immediately by return email and permanently delete the copy you received. Thank you.