Exhibit,Appendix: Stephen Pasterino v. P.Volve Llc, Rachel Katzman

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/28/2023 03:48 PM         INDEX NO. 153563/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2023




                 EXHIBIT E
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/28/2023 03:48 PM                                              INDEX NO. 153563/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2023




                           Summary of Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Evidence

           Plaintiff’s Description of “Proof of Falsity”      What the Cited Document Actually Says
                           (Opp. at 15)

          “Handwritten notes reflect Ms. Krause told the     The quoted statements are written under the
          assigned ADA in 2022—before this lawsuit           heading “Greg,” (NYSCEF 18 at 4), and
          was filed—that Pasterino ‘maintained interest      clearly refer to conversations between the
          (passive)’ in P.volve. Bloch Aff. Ex. 1.”          ADA and Pvolve’s General Counsel, Greg
                                                             Brehm, Esq., not Madison Krause. These
                                                             conversations are mentioned in Plaintiff’s
                                                             exhibit NYSCEF 19. Regardless, however,
                                                             none of this is germane to Defendants’
                                                             knowledge on August 13, 2022.

          “Handwritten notes reflect Ms. Krause told the Again, comments (i) and (iii) were made by
          assigned ADA in 2022 that Pasterino:           “Greg,” not Krause. See NYSCEF 18 at 4.
          (i) ‘maintained interest (passive)’ in P.Volve;    Likewise, the comments quoted in (ii) and (iv)
                                                             (on page 1) do not indicate the speaker and are
          (ii) ‘continued connection w/ company’ after
                                                             written in a different color ink than the notes
          his August 2020 divorce from Defendant
                                                             from the interview with “C[omplaining]
          Katzman;
                                                             W[itness]” Krause (on page 2). Further, these
          (iii) received a paycheck from P.Volve in ‘Oct     statements are not inconsistent with Krause’s
          2021’; and                                         belief and statement on August 13, 2022 that
          (iv) ‘cut ties’ with P.Volve ‘1 year or so ago,’   Plaintiff was no longer employed at Pvolve –
          i.e., August 2021.                                 it is immaterial whether he “cut ties” 1 or 2
                                                             years earlier.
          Bloch Aff. Ex. 1.”

          “Handwritten notes reflect Ms. Krause told the     This argument tries to invert the burden of
          assigned ADA in 2022 that Pasterino                proof. But Plaintiff cannot establish that
          repeatedly informed her that the property was      Krause should have known he owned the
          his. See Bloch Aff. Ex. 1 (‘He kept saying he      equipment simply because he says he owns
          bought them, they’re his.’).                       the equipment – in other words, “Because I
                                                             said so.” See Reply Memo § II(C).
          Pasterino had been storing his personal
          property in his ‘personal training room’ since
          at least September 2019. SP Aff. ¶ 6; SP Aff.
          Ex. D.”
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/28/2023 03:48 PM                                               INDEX NO. 153563/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/28/2023




           Plaintiff’s Description of “Proof of Falsity”        What the Cited Document Actually Says
                           (Opp. at 15)

          “Pasterino had been storing his personal             These are nothing more than descriptions of
          property in his ‘personal training room’ since       Plaintiff’s evidence that purportedly show or
          at least September 2019, as reflected in             describe conversations that occurred between
          communications and documents that were               2017 and 2020, none of which give the Court
          shared with Defendant Katzman. SP Aff. ¶ 6;          any reason to conclude that Delacruz, Krause,
          SP Aff. Ex. D.                                       or Katzman knew or reckless disregarded that
                                                               their statements were false on August 13,
          Pasterino had specific conversations with
                                                               2022.
          Defendant Katzman about him storing his
          private property at P.volve. SP Aff. ¶ 5.”




                                                           2