One of the many documents out and coming out that will show how it works. Garbage & Wilk circle the wagons and getting ready to cut Darren Meade adrift.

1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
In re:
August 22, 2014 Motion to Quash of Darren Mitchell Meade
____________________________________
)
SMALL JUSTICE LLC, )
)
And others, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-cv-11701-DJC
v. )
)
XCENTRIC VENTURES LLC, )
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 JOINDER MOTION OF XCENTRIC VENTURES LLC TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO DARREN MEADE.
Plaintiffs file this opposition to the September 11, 2014 Joinder Motion of defendant Xcentric Ventures LLC (“Xcentric”) to “Quash the subpoena served on Darren Meade on August 8, 2014.” (Paper 82). Xcentric’s “joinder motion” seeks to quash the subpoena duces tecum “on grounds that it is overly broad, requests documents that are not relevant … and is unduly burdensome on the nonparty.” (Paper 82 at 1). But Xcentric’s motion is not timely and procedurally defective as Xcentric lacks standing. And, the motion is substantively baseless.
In support plaintiffs rely on, and incorporate herein, their August 29, 2014 (Papers 72, 72.1, 73, 73.1 and 73.2) response and opposition to the August 22, 2014 Motion to Quash of Darren Mitchell Meade filed in this Court on August 27, 2014 (Papers 70 and 70.1).
1. Xcentric’s joinder motion is not timely. In June 2014 Xcentric informed plaintiffs that Meade had received payments but denied that he had been a paid employee of Xcentric; and, Xcentric refused to make disclosure of the relationship. (Paper 73, ¶6). On August 4, 2014,
Case 1:13-cv-11701-DJC Document 85 Filed 09/17/14 Page 1 of 6

2. 2
Xcentric was served with notice of sworn allegations in an Iowa criminal investigation: that Mr. Magedson had paid Meade more than $80,000 to create defamatory reports and post them on the Ripoff Report; and, that Meade solicited one or more subjects of defamatory reports on the Ripoff Report to pay $10,000 to remove from the Ripoff Report website the defamatory work that Meade had authored. (Paper 65.2, ¶86). On August 5, 2014, Xcentric was served with notice of the subpoena duces tecum seeking documents regarding Meade’s business relationship with Xcentric
1 and requiring production on August 14, 2014. (Paper 73, ¶¶8,9). On August 11, 2014, Xcentric’s counsel conferred with plaintiff’s counsel about the third party subpoena but did not serve any objection. (See id. ¶10). On August 15, 2014, Xcentric received copies of Mr. Meade’s two motions to quash the two August 5, 2014 subpoenas. (Id. ¶14). On August 22, 2014, Xcentric’s counsel informed plaintiffs’ counsel that at some unspecified time Xcentric had entered into what it insisted was a confidential settlement agreement with Meade and refused to produce it contending that it was not relevant. (Id. ¶20). On August 27, 2014, Mr. Meade’s two motions to quash were filed in this Court.
Twenty eight days after the due date of the subpoena, and fourteen days after Meade’s filing, Xcentric filed its “joinder” motion. Only “[o]n timely motion,” does Fed. R. Civ. P 45 (d)(3)(A) empower the Court to quash the discovery subpoena. “Although Rule 45 does not explicitly define ‘timely,’ a motion to quash is generally considered timely if it is brought before the time within which compliance is ordered.” Enargy Power (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. v. Xiaolong Wang, 2014 WL 2048416, *3 n. 5 (D. Mass. May 16, 2014)(motion to quash filed four days before time required for production held timely).
2. Xcentric lacks standing to assert substantive objections.
1 See Paper 73, ¶10; Paper 72.1, Proposed Order.
Case 1:13-cv-11701-DJC Document 85 Filed 09/17/14 Page 2 of 6

3. 3
A party may have standing to challenge a third party subpoena if and to the extent it seeks to protect a privilege or right of privacy adherent or personal to that party. Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. Swarm Sharing Hash File, 821 F. Supp. 2d 444, 450-51 (D. Mass. 2011).
Refusing to disclose the nature of its business dealings with Meade, Xcentric insists the Court must take its word that “Meade was never actually employed by Xcentric, although Xcentric did pay him money in 2012 and 2013…”. (Paper 75 at 12).
Xcentric fails to identify any privilege or privacy right that might be jeopardized by production of the documents specified by the subpoena much less the production as reduced in scope by the Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order. “The exception for claims of privilege does not apply here as … [Xcentric has] not asserted (nor could …[it] viably assert) any claim of privilege relating to the requested information.” Liberty Media Holdings, 821 F. Supp. 2d at 450.
3. Xcentric’s Joinder motion mischaracterizes the sought after discovery.
Because the subpoena was directed at Meade, the defendant Xcentric lacks standing to object substantively for relevancy, undue burden or overbreadth. See id. at 450-51,
In all events any perceived overbreadth of the subpoena is not at issue. Prior to the due date for the subpoenaed documents Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the witness—who does have standing—that his production should be limited to just the business relationship with Xcentric. (Paper 73, ¶10). After being so informed, Meade apparently accepted and agreed to copy onto a flash drive the responsive materials from the laptop, diary etc. and then to produce them, all at plaintiffs’ expense. (Id. ¶11). Meade’s motion to quash focuses on perceived claims of privilege and insufficient time. Case 1:13-cv-11701-DJC Document 85 Filed 09/17/14 Page 3 of 6

4. 4
Well aware of Plaintiffs’ August 29th proposed Order Xcentric’s September 11th motion contends there is “no articulable reasons … [the requested Order] could reasonably lead to discoverable information … [and is nothing] other than a fishing expedition.” (Paper 82 at 2). The August 29th Proposed Order is targeted and it is not a fishing expedition.
Contrary to Xcentric’s argument (Paper 82 at 3-4) it is the entire operation of Xcentric’s reputation restoration business for subjects of false and defamatory Ripoff Report postings that is open to discovery. It is not contended that liability under 93A arises out of a contract between the plaintiff and defendant.
4. Bad faith conduct of litigation; undisclosed dealings with, and possible payments to, witness.
The SAC County Iowa Prosecuting Attorney avers to evidence: (i) that in late 2011 Meade had entered into negotiations with Mr. Magedson for employment; (ii) that Mr. Magedson paid Meade more than $80,000 to create defamatory reports and post them on the Ripoff Report; (iii) that Meade solicited one or more subjects of defamatory reports on the Ripoff Report to pay $10,000 to remove from the Ripoff Report website the defamatory work that Meade had authored. (Paper 65, ¶93).
Insisting that it is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff Richard Goren’s 93A claim as a matter of law pursuant to the CDA, Xcentric has refused to make any automatic disclosures and to produce documents concerning its relationship with Meade.
On May 17, 2014 Meade emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel that he “had insider information” that was relevant to this case. (Paper 73, ¶3). On May 19, 2014, Meade informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that he had been paid by Xcentric to make postings on the Ripoff Report and that he had
Case 1:13-cv-11701-DJC Document 85 Filed 09/17/14 Page 4 of 6

5. 5
evidence concerning the operation of the reputation restoration business including names of sales persons, lead lists, the creation of additional false posts; and, that he was planning on suing Xcentric. (Paper 65, ¶92; Paper 65.2, ¶85).
According to Xcentric, the Court should preclude discovery of Meade’s business relationship with Xcentric including the timing, consideration and other terms of this “confidential” settlement agreement between a witness who purports to have evidence—adverse to Xcentric-- about the operation of Xcentric’s business to restore the reputation of persons and companies who are the subject of Ripoff Report defamatory postings.
The timing, as well as the dealings, any negotiations, the money, if any, paid to Meade, and terms of this “confidential” settlement agreement, must be brought into the open.
It is undisputed that Xcentric has made false representations of material fact to the Court concerning the issue of a meeting of the minds as to the grant of an exclusive license. (Paper 76, ¶¶108, 109, 110, 111).
Any evidence that could be construed as payments or other consideration to influence the testimony of a witness will constitute further grounds of bad faith conduct in this civil case actionable under G.L. c. 93A. There are other conceivable implications.2
5. Conclusion.
The Court should deny Xcentric’s September 11, 2014 Joinder Motion to quash the August 5, 2014 subpoena Duces Tecum to Darren Meade and enter the proposed Order submitted by Plaintiffs on August 29, 2014 (Paper 72.1).
2 See also 18 U.S.C. §201(b)(3) and (4).
Case 1:13-cv-11701-DJC Document 85 Filed 09/17/14 Page 5 of 6

6. 6
Respectfully submitted,
SMALL JUSTICE LLC,
RICHARD A. GOREN, and CHRISTIAN DUPONT,
Plaintiffs,
by their attorney,
September 17, 2014
/s/ Richard A. Goren
Richard A. Goren, Esq. BBO #203700
Law Office of Richard Goren
101 Federal Street Suite 1900
Boston MA 02110
617-261-8585
rgoren@richardgorenlaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF), and that paper copies will be sent to those non-registered participants (if any) on September 17, 2014.
/s/ Richard A. Goren
Case 1:13-cv-11701-DJC Document 85 Filed 09/17/14 Page 6 of 6