08-05-16 Hogan Motion For Sanctions With Exhibits OCR

Filing # 44907857 E-Filed 08/05/2016 05:34:34 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
TERRY GENE BOLLEA professionally
known as HULK HOGAN,
Case No.:
12012447-CI-011
Plaintiff,
vs.
HEATHER CLEM; GAWKER MEDIA,
LLC aka GAWKER MEDIA, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________
BOLLEAS RENEWED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

AND FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AGAINST DAULERIO
Plaintiff, Terry Bollea known professionally as Hulk Hogan (Mr. Bollea), by counsel,
and pursuant to Section 45.045, Fla. Stat., and the Courts inherent authority, moves, solely as to
Defendant, A.J. Daulerio (Mr. Daulerio),1 for the entry of an order imposing sanctions that
the Court deems appropriate as a result of Mr. Daulerios and/or his counsels material
misrepresentations to this Court, including but not limited to, awarding monetary sanctions, costs
and attorneys fees and entering an order to show cause as to why Mr. Daulerio and/or his
counsel should not be held in contempt for hindering and obstructing this Court in the
administration of justice. The grounds upon which this motion is based are as follows:
Overview of Requested Relief
On July 29, 2016, this Court entered its Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs Motion to
Vacate; Denying Stay of Execution Pending Appeal; and Denying Defendants Motion for Stay
to Seek Appellate Review, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A (the July 29 Order). In
1 At this time, because of their bankruptcy proceedings and the associated automatic stays, Mr. Bollea
does not seek any relief against Defendants, Gawker Media, LLC and Nick Denton. Mr. Bollea fully
reserves his right to do so upon the lifting of the stay(s).
{BC00097836:1}
* * *ELECTRONICALLY FILED 08/05/2016 05:34:33 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT. PINELLAS COUNTY***
the July 29 Order, this Court found that Mr. Daulerio misled the Court in connection with his
pledge of Gawker Media Group, Inc. (GMGI) stock as adequate security to stay execution of
the $115,100,000 judgment against him. (July 29 Order f 8) This Court further found that
Mr. Daulerio and his counsel failed to advise the Court about material facts of which they were
aware that significantly impacted the value of the Gawker Media Group, Inc. stock Mr. Daulerio
pledged. (Id. *|j 11)
The Court reserved jurisdiction to award attorneys fees and costs as a sanction, impose
additional sanctions and remedies, and to issue an order to show cause as to why Mr. Daulerio
and/or [his] counsel should not be held in contempt of court, all of which this Court takes under
advisement at this time. Through this motion, Mr. Bollea respectfully requests that, based on
the Courts July 29, 2016 findings and the additional facts set forth herein, sanctions now be
imposed against Mr. Daulerio and/or his counsel.
Mr. Daulerios Additional Misconduct
In the July 29 Order, this Court correctly found that Mr. Daulerio misled this Court about
his stock in GMGI. In addition to that, Mr. Daulerio has also made material misrepresentations
about his net worth that directly impacted the punitive damages phase of the trial, as well as this
Courts initial decision to grant a temporary stay of execution.
Specifically, Mr. Daulerio
concealed indemnity rights he holds against Gawker Media, LLC (Gawker) and/or GMGI.
These indemnity rights should have been disclosed and included within Mr. Daulerios net worth
for purposes of punitive damages and his request for a stay of execution based on alternative
security.
Prior to trial, Mr. Bollea propounded financial worth discovery to Mr. Daulerio, including
interrogatories. In his verified responses, Mr. Daulerio did not disclose his indemnity rights as
{BC00097836:!
an asset. (6/4/2015 Response # 3; attached as Exhibit B) In fact, Mr. Daulerio affirmatively

represented that he did not have any such rights. {Id. #4). Consequently, the parties entered into
a Stipulation at trial regarding Mr. Daulerios net worth, which provided as follows: Defendant
A.J. Daulerio has no material assets and has student loan debt in the amount of $27,000. {See
Stipulation f 6) This stipulation was read to the jury. (3891:10-3892:21)
Mr. Bolleas counsel took Mr. Daulerio at his word, relied upon the net worth Stipulation,
and structured his argument to the jury accordingly. At one point, Mr. Daulerios counsel even
objected to a portion of the punitive damages closing that addressed GMGIs $276 million
stipulated value, because Gawker Media Group is not a party to this case. (3899:16-3901:15)
Mr. Daulerios counsel followed by arguing that the $115,000,000 verdict ... means
financial ruin for Mr. Daulerio ... he has no material assets ... he will never be able to pay
$115,000,000. (3910:25-3911:5) Mr. Daulerios counsel also addressed the financial condition
and exposure of Mr. Denton, Gawker and GMGI:
As you just heard from Mr. Turkel, [Mr. Dentons] main asset is
his ownership interest in Gawker Medias Parent Company,
GMGI. That company is not a party to this case. It is not before
you to be held liable.
Mr. Denton owns a percentage of that company. Besides that,
besides that ownership interest, he has total assetsbesides that,
he has total assets, as the judge told you of $3.6 million. That
includes his home, his checking account, his savings account, his
retirement funds. Everything. $3.6 million. The verdict already
rendered will be financially devastating to Mr. Denton.
(3910:5-24) (emphasis added)
On rebuttal, Mr. Bolleas counsel acknowledged Mr. Daulerios position that GMGI was
not a party to the case. (3915: 14-24) Mr. Bolleas counsel also acknowledged, based on Mr.
Daulerios factual representations and the Stipulation, (all of which counsel believed to be true),
that Mr. Bollea, in fairness, could not tell the jury that a gentleman who has no assets and
{BC00097836:!}
$27,000 worth of student loans as his present worth would not be bankrupted or be financially
destroyed by this. (3917: 5-10)
At Mr. Daulerios request and over Mr. Bolleas objection, the jury was instructed that it
could not award an amount that would financially destroy or bankrupt any of the defendants.
(3890:20-22) The jury followed that instruction, particularly as to Mr. Daulerio, by assessing
only $100,000 in punitive damages against him.
What we now know, based on Gawkers June 10, 2016 bankruptcy filings, is that
Mr. Denton and Mr. Daulerio have indemnity rights which were concealed from the Court, the
jury and Mr. Bollea. Specifically, Mr. Daulerio is subject to a company practice and policy
of indemnification, by which the Debtor[s] defend and indemnify their writers and editorial
staff in connection with lawsuits related to the companys web content. (See Holden Dec. f
24)2
Consequently, when Mr. Daulerio claimed to the jury that there was no way he could pay
the $115 million compensatory damage award, he was not being truthful.34 When he claimed to
the jury that he has no material assets, he was not being truthful. Under Florida law, indemnity
rights and choses in action are assets. See Puzzo v. Ray, 386 So.2d 49, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980);
General Guaranty Ins. Co. o f Fla. v. DaCosta, 190 So.2d 211, 213-14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).
When Mr. Daulerio entered into the net worth Stipulation he was not being truthful. And when
Mr. Bollea, the jury and this Court took Mr. Daulerio at his word about these facts, we were all
deceived.
2 Mr. Denton also had broad indemnity rights, including an undisclosed December 2009
Indemnity
Agreement with GMGI.
o
Regardless of whether Mr. Daulerios indemnity rights flow from GMGI and/or Gawker,
GMGIs President and General Counsel had already assured Mr. Denton that GMGI would pay
all of the $115 million compensatory damages awarded by the jury.
{BC00097836:!
The fact that Mr. Daulerio had indemnity rights that he concealed during financial worth
discovery would have justified striking his pauper defense at trial. Improperly withholding net
worth information justifies disallowing a low net worth defense.
Belle Glade Chevrolet-
Cadillac Buick Pontiac Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Figgie, 54 So.3d 991, 996-97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
Once Mr. Daulerio made the argument to the jury that a large punitive award would
financially destroy him, his indemnity rights became relevant. Humana Health Ins. Co. o f
Florida, Inc. v. Chipps, 802 So.2d 492, 497-98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) is directly on point: Once
[defendant] claimed that a large award would hurt or bankrupt the company financially, the
[indemnity] agreement became relevant for purposes of proving otherwise. If there is evidence
to rebut a defendants assertion that a large award would force it into financial straits, then it
should be admitted. Id.; see also Wheeler v. Murphy, 452 S.E.2d 416, 424 (W.Va. 1994) (A
defendants net worth is relevant to the issue of punitive damages, and in this case, where
defense counsel offered evidence of Mr. Murphys meager finances, the plaintiffs rebuttal
evidence disclosing the existence and policy limits of Mr. Murphys liability insurance is not
barred...); Wallace v. Poulos, 861 F.Supp.2d 587, 602 (D. Md. 2012) ([informing the jury of
the indemnification agreement makes jurors aware that Defendants ability to pay is essentially a
moot point [and] ensures that jurors have an accurate understanding of the likely deterrence
effect of their judgment.)
Here, Mr. Bollea was denied his right to discover and present this highly relevant
evidence to the jury because Mr. Daulerio (and Mr. Denton) concealed their indemnity rights.
While the validity and enforceability of Mr. Daulerios indemnity rights may be subject to
debate, that fact is of no consequence at this point because the deception of the jury and this
Court at trial cannot be undone - the debate should have taken place before the jury rendered its
{BC00097836:!}
punitive damages, not after the trial. Moreover, Mr. Bollea notes that Gawker and GMGIs
General Counsel and President, Heather Dietrick, already assured Mr. Denton, before and after
the trial, that his indemnity rights for the entire amount of the Bollea judgment would be
honored. (See Dietrick 7/6/15 Depo. at pp. 55-70.) Unless GMGI and Gawker intend to leave
Mr. Daulerio exposed (notwithstanding Gawkers bankruptcy case argument and public assertion
that doing so would have a chilling effect on Gawkers other writers), Mr. Daulerio must have
been extended the same assurances that Mr. Denton received.
Mr. Daulerios concealment of relevant and material evidence directly impacted the trial.
The fact that Mr. Daulerio and Mr. Denton, who are represented by the same counsel, both
concealed their indemnity rights demonstrates a calculated scheme to reduce their exposure to
punitive damages.
Mr. Daulerios concealment of his true net worth even continued after the trial, when he
sought a stay of execution. In support of his June 9, 2016 Motion for Stay of Execution Pending
Appeal, Mr. Daulerio filed a sworn affidavit attached as Exhibit C, in which he affirmed as
follows:
2.
3.
{BC00097836:!}
My assets are:
a.
A 44.7% ownership interest in RGFree, Inc. (RGFree), a

privately-held start-up media company. RGFree is not currently
operational, and it has not earned any revenue. As a result, my
ownership interest in RGFree is not of material value.
b.
5,900 shares in Gawker Media Group, Inc.
c.
Checking and savings accounts holding approximately $13,000.

The money comes exclusively from gifts and some freelance
writing work. I do not currently have full-time employment.
I do not own a home, a car, or any other material assets.
Once again, Mr. Daulerio concealed his indemnification rights from Mr. Bollea and the
Court. At the hearing held in this Court at 9:00 a.m. on June 10, 2016, Mr. Daulerios counsel
acknowledged that they and their clients understood that the plaintiff wants security for the
judgment. (6/10/16 Trans, p. 6:19-21)4 They also urged this Court to accept the pledge of
Mr. Daulerios GMGI stock and options as adequate security in exchange for a stay of execution
pending appeal. They represented to the Court that, were not seeking some sort of free ride.
Were not seeking an unsecured stay. (6/10/16 Trans, p. 7:14-17) Mr. Denton, as we said in
[the Motion for Stay] and now I can say the same for Mr. Daulerio, are literally willing to put
their money where their mouth is. Both of them will pledge their shares of Gawker Media
Group, Inc., as security for the judgment that has been entered... (6/10/16 Trans, pp. 7:20-8:4)
(emphasis added).
At the hearing, Mr. Daulerios counsel also reaffirmed Mr. Daulerios false
representations regarding his assets:
Weve done a serious analysis, and what we are offering is a
serious condition. We have pledged what, between the three
defendants, is the most meaningful asset they have. And, again,
its effectively what the plaintiff could get if he were to execute.
(6/10/16 Trans, pp. 16:16-17:4) (emphasis added). This assertion was also untrue.
Within hours of making this statement, Gawker obtained a temporary restraining order
from its bankruptcy court that protected Mr. Daulerio, and was based, in part, on the sworn
assertion that Mr. Daulerio has indemnity rights. Those indemnity rights are an asset which Mr.
Bollea could get through proceedings supplementary to help satisfy the judgment. Puzzo, 386
So.2d 49, 51; DaCosta, 190 So.2d 211, 213-14; see also In re. Celotex Corp., 204 B.R. 586, 613-
4 The June 10, 2016 Hearing Transcript is attached as Exhibit D.

{BC00097836:!}
14 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (indemnification rights are property of a debtors estate, which can be
assigned or transferred).
Having undertaken a serious analysis, Mr. Daulerio and his counsel certainly knew that
his indemnity rights were available to help satisfy the judgment. Importantly, these indemnity
rights flowed from a non-party, GMGI, whose stipulated value was $276 million.
Argument
The integrity of the civil litigation process depends on truthful disclosure of facts.
Morgan, 993 So.2d at 253-54, citing Cox1 706 So.2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Revealing
only some o f the facts does not constitute truthful d i s c l o s u r e Id. at 254 (emphasis
added)(citing Metro Dade County v. Martinsen, 736 So.2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)).
Preserving the integrity of the judicial process and protecting the proper administration of
justice are of paramount importance. That is why attorneys are primarily officers of the Court,
bound to serve the ends of justice with openness, candor and fairness to alleven when it
appears in conflict with a clients interests. Ramey v. Thomas, 382 So.2d 78, 81 (Fla. 5th DCA
1980). In fact, the duty of candor toward the tribunal is viewed as one of the most sacrosanct
ethical and legal obligations in the Rules of Professional Conduct and under Florida law. See,
Rules 4-3.3 and 4-8.4, Fla. R. Prof. Cond.; Phillip Morris USA, Inc. v. Green, 175 So.2d 312,
315 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (the integrity of our system of justice is the quintessence of the judicial
estoppel rule).
Every court has the prerogative and duty to see that its processes are not abused.
Marine Transport Lines, Inc. v. Green, 114 So.2d 710, 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). In furtherance
of this duty, all courts have the inherent authority to impose sanctions for bad faith litigation.
Patsy v. Patsy, 666 So.2d 1045, 1046-47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Sheldon Greene & Assoc., Inc. v.
{BC00097836:!
Williams Island Assoc., Ltd., 592 So.2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Emerson Realty Group, Inc. v.
Schanze, 572 So.2d 942, 945 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
Section 45.045, Fla. Stat., also affords this Court substantial discretion to impose
sanctions. Under 45.045(4), [i]f the trial or appellate court determines that an appellant has
dissipated or diverted assets outside the course of its ordinary business or is in the process of
doing so, the court may enter orders necessary to protect the appellee, require the appellant to
post a supersedeas bond in an amount up to, but not more than, the amount that would be
required for an automatic stay pursuant to Rule 9.310(b)(1), Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure, and impose other remedies and sanctions as the Court deems appropriate. See, Rule
9.310(b)(3), Fla. R. App. Proc.
Here, Mr. Daulerio and his counsel intentionally misled this Court, the jury and
Mr. Bollea by concealing Mr. Daulerios indemnity rights so he could cry poor to reduce his
punitive damages exposure.
Then, they intentionally misled this Court and Mr. Bollea by
purposely concealing material facts associated with his assets and the value and legitimacy of the
alternative security he pledged in exchange for a request, which this Court orally granted, to stay
execution of a $115,100,000 Final Judgment.
Mr. Daulerios pledge of GMGI stock was
illusory, and at the time he asked this Court for the extraordinary remedy of staying execution
without having to post a good and sufficient bond required under Florida law, he was
concealing a significant asset.
Then, because he was upset that Mr. Bollea and this Court
unknowingly accepted his false representations and illusory stock pledge, Mr. Daulerio was
implicit in the scheme to circumvent this Court in order to obtain a stay on more preferable
conditions to him in Gawkers bankruptcy proceedings.
{BC00097836:!}
Mr. Daulerios misconduct interfered with this Courts and the jurys ability to
impartially adjudicate, and improperly influenced the trier of fact regarding, central issues in this
case: punitive damages and a stay of execution. Mr. Daulerio is guilty of making material
misrepresentations that directly impacted the trial, and should be sanctioned accordingly.
In light of the severity and repetition of Mr. Daulerios misconduct, he should also be
required to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt. To the extent that his
attorneys participated in that misconduct, they should likewise be punished. Contempt is an act
that hinders or obstructs a court in the administration of justice. Ex parte Crews, 173 So. 275
(1937). Florida cases have recognized the use of direct and indirect criminal contempt to punish
the making of perjured statements. Haeussler v. State, 100 So.3d 732, 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).
Direct criminal contempt is an act committed in the presence of the court so as to hinder judicial
proceedings, and may result in serious consequences, including immediate imprisonment.
Emanuel v. State, 601 So.2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Intentionally underrepresenting
ones financial condition in sworn documents filed with a trial court is punishable by at least
indirect criminal contempt. Haeussler, 100 So.3d at 734.
Courts have the discretion to cite a guilty person for contempt, direct that the record be
sent to the State Attorneys office for investigation or, in proper cases, strike pleadings or
testimony shown to be a sham. Parham v. Kohler, 134 So.2d 274, 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).
Remedies for perjury, slander and the like committed during judicial proceedings are left to the
discipline of the courts, the bar association, and the state. Wright v. Yurko, 446 So.2d 1162, 1164
(Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Sheldon Greene & Assoc., Inc., 592 So.2d 307; Emerson Realty, 572 So.2d
at 945; Rule 2.515, Fla. R. Jud. Admin.', Emanuel, 601 So.2d at 1275; Parham, 134 So.2d at 276;
Wright, 446 So.2d at 1164.
{BC00097836:!}
10
[B]asic, fundamental dishonesty... is a serious flaw, which cannot be tolerated because

dishonesty and a lack of candor cannot be tolerated by a profession that relies on the
truthfulness of its members. The Florida Bar v. Head, 27 So.3d 1, 8 (Fla. 2010). Dishonest
conduct demonstrates the utmost disrespect for the court and is destructive to the legal system as
a whole. Id. at 8-9. When such conduct occurs, courts also have the authority to assess fees
and costs against parties and their counsel. Patsy, 666 So.2d at 1047; Levine v. Keaster, 862
So.2d 876, 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
WHEREFORE, Mr. Bollea respectfully requests that this Court adjudicate Mr. Daulerio
guilty of making material misrepresentations to the jury and this Court,5 sanction Mr. Daulerio
and/or his counsel, award attorneys fees and costs, and consider entering an order to show cause
as to why Mr. Daulerio and/or his counsel should not be held in contempt, as well as grant any
other relief this Court deems just and appropriate.
DATED: August 5, 2016.
/s/Kenneth G. Turkel________________________
Kenneth G. Turkel, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 867233
Shane B. Vogt
Florida Bar No. 257620
BAJO CUVA COHEN & TURKEL, P.A.
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 1900
Tampa, Florida 33602
Tel: (813)443-2199
Fax: (813) 443-2193
Email: kturkcl@baiocuva.corn
Email: svogt@baiocuva.com
Charles J. Harder, Esq.
PHVNo. 102333
HARDER MIRELL & ABRAMS LLP
132 S. Rodeo Drive, Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel: (424) 203-1600
Fax: (424) 203-1601
5 Mr. Bollea seeks specific findings regarding Mr. Daulerios misconduct because such misconduct may impact his
rights in his appeal o f the Final Judgment.
{BC00097836:!}
11
Email: charder@hmafirm.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
{BC00097836:!
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
E-Mail via the e-portal system this 5th day of August, 2016 to the following:
Gregg D. Thomas, Esquire
Rachel E. Fugate, Esquire
Thomas & LoCicero PL
601 S. Boulevard
RthomasfcTlolawfirm.com
rfuRatefcTlolawfirm.com
kbrownfc, 11o 1awii rm.com
abccncfcTlolawfinn.com
Counsel for Gawker Defendants
Steven L. Brannock, Esquire

Celene H. Humphries, Esquire
Brannock & Humphries
1111 West Cass Street, Suite 200
Tampa, FL 33606
sbrannockffcbhaoDcals.com
clnimphricsfcfbhappcals.com
escrviccfcfbhappeals.com
Seth D. Berlin, Esquire

Paul J. Safier, Esquire
Alia L. Smith, Esquire
Michael D. Sullivan, Esquire
Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP
1899 L. Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
sbcrlinfcflskslaw.com
psaficrfcflskslaw.com
asmithfcflskslaw.com
msullivanfcflskslaw.com
Pro Hac Vice Counselfor
Gawker Defendants
Michael Berry, Esquire
Levine Sullivan Koch & Schultz, LLP
1760 Market Street, Suite 1001
Philadelphia, PA 19103
mbciTvffclskslaw.com
Pro Hac Vice Counselfor
Gawker Defendants
Co-Counselfor Gawker Defendants

David R. Houston, Esquire
Law Office of David R. Houston
432 Court Street
Reno, NV 89501
dhoustonfcfhoustonatlaw.com
krosscrfcfhouslonatlaw.com
Stuart C. Markman, Esquire

Kristin A. Norse, Esquire
Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A.
Post Office Box 3396
smarkmanfcikmi-laYv.com
knorsefcfkmf-law.com
plawhcadfcfkmi-law.com
Appellate Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
/s/ Kenneth G. Turkel

Attorney
{BC00097836:!!
13
Filing # 44907857 E-Filed 08/05/2016 05:34:34 PM
EXHIBIT A
to Bolleas Renewed Motion for Sanctions and for
Order to Show Cause Against Daulerio
* ELECTRONICALLY FILED 08/05/2016 05:34:33 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY***

k n o w n a s HULK HOGAN,
C ase No. 12012447 CI-011
UCN: 522012CA012447X XCICI
Plaintiff,
vs.
GAWKER MEDIA, LLC,

NICK DENTON, a n d A .J.
DAULERIO,
D efendants.
______________________________________
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO VACATE;

DENYING STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL;
AND DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR STAY TO SEEK
APPELLATE REVIEW
THIS CAUSE cam e before th e C o u rt on P lain tiffs E m ergency M otion to
V acate a n d /o r Modify J u n e 10, 2016, O ral R uling on M otion for S tay of
E x ecu tio n Pending A ppeal, For R ehearing a n d R econsideration, for S a n c tio n s
a n d /o r O rder to Show C au se, a n d For Award of A tto rn ey s Fees a n d C osts
A gainst D efen d an ts D enton a n d D aulerio (the E m ergency M otion), filed
J u ly 25, 2016, a n d D efen d an ts D enton a n d D au lerio s M otion for S tay [of e n try
of th is Order] to Seek A ppellate Review, filed J u ly 27, 2016. The C o u rt h a s
review ed th e E m ergency M otion a n d Mr. D e n to n s a n d Mr. D au lerio s
O pposition th ere to , th e M otion for S tay to Seek A ppellate Review a n d
o p position th ere to , review ed th e exhibits, tra n s c rip ts , testim ony, affidavits a n d
Bollea v. G aw ker
C ase No. 12 0 1 2 4 4 7 Cl 11
Order Granting in Part Plaintiff s M otion to Vacate; D enying S tay of E xecution P en d in g Appeal;
and D enying Defendant s M otion for S tay to S eek A ppellate Review
Page 1 o f 9
d e clara tio n s filed in su p p o rt, co n sid ered law cited by th e p a rtie s, a n d is

o therw ise fully advised in th e p rem ises. The C o u rt FINDS a s follows:
1.
R ule 9 .3 1 0 , Fla. R. A pp. P., a n d S ection 4 5 .0 4 5 , Fla. Stat., afford
th is C o u rt s u b s ta n tia l d iscretio n to g ra n t, m odify or deny a sta y of execution,

a n d if th is C o u rt d ete rm in e s th a t a n a p p e lla n t h a s d issip a te d or diverted a s s e ts
o u tsid e th e c o u rse of its o rd in ary b u s in e s s or is in th e p ro ce ss of doing so, th is
C o u rt m ay e n te r o rd ers n e c e ssa ry to p ro tec t th e appellee, req u ire th e a p p e lla n t
to p o st a su p e rse d e a s b o n d in a n a m o u n t u p to, b u t n o t m ore th a n , th e
a m o u n t th a t w ould be req u ired for a n a u to m a tic sta y p u r s u a n t to Rule
9.310(b)(1), Florida R ules of A ppellate P rocedure, a n d im pose o th e r rem edies
a n d sa n c tio n s a s th e C o u rt deem s a p p ro p riate. See, R ule 9.310(b)(3), Fla. R.
App. P.
2.
P rotection of th e ju d g m e n t holder, a n d a s s u rin g p a y m e n t in th e
event th e ju d g m e n t is affirm ed on ap p eal, a re of p a ra m o u n t im p o rtan ce.

Pabian v. Pabian, 469 So.2d 189, 191 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1985) (citing K nipe v.
Knipe, 290 S o.2d 271 (Fla. 2 d DCA 1974).
3.
A tria l c o u rt sh o u ld n o t g ra n t a sta y th a t p reju d ices a ju d g m e n t
h o ld e rs realistic o p p o rtu n ities to collect u p o n th e ju d g m e n t or th a t p rev e n ts a

c red ito r from e sta b lish in g a lien a n d p riority to collect u p o n th e ju d g m e n t in
th e event th a t th e d eb to r ev entually h a s a s s e ts . Platt v. R u sse k , 921 So.2d 5,
8 (Fla. 2 d DCA 2004). B oth th e b u rd e n of proof a n d p e rs u a s io n to im pose
co n d itio n s th a t do n o t g u a ra n te e th e full p a y m e n t of th e ju d g m e n t a t th e
Bollea v. G aw ker
C ase No. 12 0 1 2 4 4 7 Cl 11
O rd er G ran tin g in P a rt P laintiff s M otion to V acate; Denying Stay of E xecution P en d in g Appeal;
a n d D enying D efen d an t s Motion for S tay to S eek A ppellate Review
Page 2 o f 9
co n clu sio n of th e a p p eal sh o u ld be u p o n th e ju d g m e n t debtor. Id. A trial c o u rt

does n o t have th e a u th o rity to sta y a ju d g m e n t w ith o u t posing an y conditions
u p o n th e ju d g m e n t debtor. Id.
4.
If a ju d g m e n t d eb to r h a s a s s e ts or incom e th a t could be u s e d to
satisfy th e ju d g m e n t in w hole or p a rt, th e tria l c o u rt w ould prejudice th e

ju d g m e n t h o ld er by stay in g execution on co nditions th a t did n o t provide th e
ju d g m e n t h o ld er w ith p ro tectio n to th e e x te n t of th o se a s s e ts a n d incom e. Id.
5.
S tays p e n d in g review a re e q u itab le in n a tu re a n d d eterm in ed
b a se d on a b a la n ce of equities betw een th e p a rtie s. H ollingsw orth v. Perry, 558

U.S. 183, 190 (2010). T hose seeking equity m u s t do so w ith clean h a n d s.
E p stein v. E pstein, 9 1 5 So.2d 1272, 1275 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2005). The u n c le a n
h a n d s d o ctrine is a self-im posed o rd in an c e th a t closes th e doors of a c o u rt of
equity to one ta in te d w ith in eq u ita b le n e ss or b a d faith relative to th e m a tte r in
w h ich h e seek s relief. C ongress P ark Office C ondos II, LLC v. First C itizens
B a n k & Trust Co., 105 So.3d 602, 609 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2013). C o n d u c t qualifying
a s sn e a k y a n d deceitful... co n cealm en t, trick ery or u n c o n sc ie n tio u s is
sufficient to b a r relief. Id.
6.
By oral ru lin g on J u n e 10, 2016, th is C o u rt initially ex ten d ed
eq u itab le relief to M essrs. D enton a n d D aulerio, a t th e ir own b e h e st a n d on

th e ir own m otion, b a se d u p o n th e ir offer to pledge th e ir sto c k in n o n -p arty ,
G aw ker M edia G roup, Inc., in exchange for a tem p o rary sta y of execution
p en d in g appeal. C o n siste n t w ith Platt, th is C o u rt im posed conditions w hich
Bollea v. G aw ker
Case No. 12 012447 Cl 11
O rd er G ran tin g in Part Plaintiff s M otion to Vacate; D enying S tay of Execution Pending Appeal;
and D enying Defendant s M otion for Stay to Seek Appellate Review
Page 3 o f 9
m erely p rev en ted p reju d ice to Mr. B olleas realistic o p p o rtu n ities to collect
u p o n th e ju d g m e n t, p rev en ted p reju d ice to Mr. B ollea by stay in g execution
b a se d on cond itio n s th a t provided Mr. Bollea w ith p ro tectio n to th e e x te n t of
Mr. D au lerio s a n d Mr. D e n to n s a s s e ts a n d incom e, a n d p e rm itte d Mr. Bollea
to e sta b lish h is ju d g m e n t lien a n d priority to collect u p o n h is final ju d g m e n t.
7.
However, Mr. D enton a n d Mr. D au lerio s pledge of G aw ker M edia
G roup, Inc. sto c k a s altern ativ e se cu rity to sta y execution is no longer

a p p ro p ria te .
8.
Mr. D enton a n d Mr. D aulerio m isled th is C o u rt in co n n ectio n w ith
th e ir pledge of G aw ker M edia G roup, Inc. sto c k by concealing m ateria l

in fo rm ation a b o u t th e v alue of th a t sto ck w hich a re a so n a b le p erso n , u n d e r
sim ilar c irc u m sta n c e s, sh o u ld have disclosed. The integrity of th e civil
litigation p ro cess d ep en d s on tru th fu l d isclo su re of fa c ts. Morgan v. Campbell,
8 1 6 So.2d 251, 25 3 -5 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (citing Cox v. B urke 706 S o.2d 43,
47 (Fla. 5 th DCA 1998). Revealing only som e of th e facts does n o t c o n stitu te
tru th fu l d isc lo su re . Id. a t 254 (em phasis a d d e d )(citing Metro D ade C ounty v.
M artinsen, 736 So.2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)).
9.
In th e ir m otion for sta y of execution a n d a t th e J u n e 10, 2016,
h earin g , Mr. D enton a n d Mr. D aulerio cited to P lain tiffs e x p e rts v a lu a tio n of
Mr. D e n to n s 29.52% ow nership in te re s t G aw ker M edia G roup, Inc.
(approxim ately $ 2 7 6 million) a n d sta te d : Mr. D enton is p re p a re d to provide
se cu rity th a t P lain tiffs expert v alu ed a t $81 m illion. R egardless of w h e th er
Bollea v. Gawker
Case No. 12 012447 Cl 11
Order Granting in Part Plaintiff s Motion to Vacate; Denying Stay of Execution Pending Appeal;
and Denying Defendant s Motion for Stay to Seek Appellate Review
Page 4 of 9
Mr. D en ton a n d Mr. D aulerio so u g h t to qualify th is value, it w as n o n e th e le ss

u s e d to give Mr. Bollea a n d th is C o u rt th e im p re ssio n th a t th e sto c k h a d
significant value. W hile doing so, Mr. D enton h a d a c tu a l know ledge of, a n d
Mr. D aulerio by v irtu e of h is co u n sel sh o u ld have know n a b o u t, m ate ria l facts
s u b s ta n tia lly affecting th e v alu e of th a t stock.
10.
At th e tim e of th e J u n e 10, 2016, hearin g , Mr. D en to n a n d
Mr. D aulerio failed to disclose th a t: G aw ker M edia, LLC, G aw ker M edia G roup,
Inc. a n d Kinja, Kft. h a d a lread y approved, on J u n e 9, 2016, reso lu tio n s to file
for b a n k ru p tc y p rotection; th a t G aw ker M edia, LLC, also on J u n e 9, 2016, h a d
a lread y signed its b a n k ru p tc y petition; th a t, d u rin g th e w eek of May 22, 2016,
a sta lk in g h o rse b id d er h a d a lread y b een selected to b u y all of th e G aw ker
e n titie s a sse ts; a n d th a t th e G aw ker co m p an ies h a d a lread y agreed to sell all of
th e ir a s s e ts for j u s t $90 m illion in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e ir im m in en t b a n k ru p tc y
filings, only a sm all p o rtio n of w hich could possibly flow to Mr. D en to n or
Mr. D aulerio. T hese are all m ateria l facts affecting th e v alue of th e sto c k
Mr. D en ton a n d Mr. D aulerio pledged, w hich th ey sh o u ld have disclosed a t th e
J u n e 10, 2016, h earing; a n d certain ly sh o u ld have told th is C o u rt a b o u t w h en
it a sk e d w hy th e D efen d an ts could n o t agree to th e conditions Mr. Bollea
p ro p o sed a tte n d a n t to th e sto c k pledge a t th e J u n e 10, 2016, h earing.
11.
T his C o u rt e x p ressed its co n cern a t th e J u n e 10, 2016, h earin g
over th e dw indling v alue of D e n to n s sh a re s , p a rtic u la rly given D e fe n d a n ts

p rio r objection to Mr. B olleas May 2016, re q u e st to c o n d u c t financial discovery
Bollea v. G aw ker
C ase No. 12 012447 Cl 11
O rd er G ran tin g in P a rt P laintiff s M otion to V acate; D enying S tay of E xecution P en d in g Appeal;
a n d D enying D efen d an t s M otion for S tay to S eek A ppellate Review
Page 5 o f 9
in ad v an ce of th e J u n e 10, 2016, hearin g . In resp o n se , Mr. D enton,

Mr. D aulerio a n d th e ir c o u n sel did n o t advise th is C o u rt a b o u t a n y of th e se
m ateria l facts of w hich th ey w ere aw are th a t severely im p acted th e value of th e
G aw ker M edia G roup, Inc. stock.
12.
Given w h a t tra n s p ire d before, d u rin g a n d after th e J u n e 10, 2016,
h earin g , th e acc ep tan c e of G aw ker M edia G roup, Inc. sto ck a s altern ativ e
se cu rity to sta y execution a n d th e a sso c ia te d cond itio n s in clu d ed in th is
C o u rts J u n e 10, 2016, oral ru lin g c a n n o t sta n d . The pledge of G aw ker M edia
G roup, Inc. sto ck is n o t a d e q u a te security.
13.
In th e ir opposition, Mr. D enton a n d Mr. D aulerio have n o t offered
a n y o th e r se cu rity or conditions. R ath er, th e y s ta n d by th e ir pledge of stock

w ith o u t an y co nditions a t all.
14.
Given th e se events, a n d th e c u rre n t c irc u m sta n c e s p re se n te d to
th is C ourt, g ran tin g a sta y of execution to Mr. D enton a n d Mr. D aulerio w ould
p reju d ice Mr. B olleas realistic o p p o rtu n ities to collect u p o n th e ju d g m e n t,
p reju d ice Mr. Bollea by failing to p ro tec t him to th e e x te n t of Mr. D au lerio s a n d
Mr. D e n to n s a s s e ts a n d incom e, a n d prejudice Mr. Bollea by prev en tin g him
from e sta b lish in g h is ju d g m e n t lien a n d p riority to collect u p o n h is final
ju d g m e n t.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED a n d ADJUDGED a s follows:
1.
P lain tiffs E m ergency M otion to V acate a n d /o r Modify J u n e 10,
2 0 1 6 , O ral R uling on M otion for S tay of E xecution Pending A ppeal, for

Bollea v. Gawker
Case No. 12 012447 Cl 11
Page 6 of 9
R eh earin g a n d R econsideration, for S a n c tio n s a n d /o r O rder to Show C ause,

a n d For Aw ard of A tto rn ey s Fees a n d C osts A gainst D efen d an ts D enton a n d
D aulerio is GRANTED in p a rt.
2.
T his C o u rts J u n e 10, 2 0 1 6 , oral ru lin g g ran tin g Mr. D en to n a n d
Mr. D au lerio s M otion for S tay of E xecution P ending A ppeal conditioned u p o n a

pledge of G aw ker M edia G roup, Inc. sto c k is VACATED.
3.
Mr. D e n to n s a n d Mr. D au lerio s M otion to S tay E xecution Pending
A ppeal h e a rd on J u n e 10, 2 0 1 6 , is DENIED. Mr. Bollea m ay im m ediately

ex ecu te u p o n th e J u n e 7, 2016, F inal J u d g m e n t a g a in st Mr. D enton a n d
Mr. D aulerio.
4.
Mr. D e n to n s a n d Mr. D au lerio s M otion for S tay to S eek A ppellate
review filed J u ly 27, 2016, is DENIED.

5.
D efendant, G aw ker M edia, LLC, c a n n o t be a n d is n o t in clu d ed in
a n y ru lin g h erein , a n d is otherw ise u n affected by th is O rder, b e c a u se of its

b a n k ru p tc y a n d th e a sso c ia te d stay.
6.
This O rder is w ith o u t prejudice to Mr. D e n to n s a n d Mr. D au lerio s
ability to se cu re a n a u to m a tic sta y by p o stin g a good a n d sufficient b o n d eq u al

to th e p rin cip al a m o u n t of th e ju d g m e n t p lu s twice th e s ta tu to ry ra te of
in te re s t on ju d g m e n ts on th e to ta l a m o u n t on w hich th e p a rty h a s a n
obligation to pay in te re s t p u r s u a n t to th e p ro ce d u res, term s a n d conditions
d escrib ed in Rule 9 .3 1 0 a n d Section 4 5 .0 4 5 , Florida S ta tu tes, su b je c t to th is
Bollea v. Gawker
Case No. 12 012447 Cl 11
Page 7 of 9
C o u rts c o n tin u in g ju risd ic tio n u n d e r R ule 9.310(a) to g ra n t, m odify or deny

s u c h relief.
7.
The C o u rt reserves ju ris d ic tio n to aw ard a tto rn e y s fees a n d co sts
a s a sa n ctio n , im pose a d d itio n al sa n c tio n s a n d rem edies, a n d to issu e a n o rd er

to show c a u se a s to w hy Mr. D enton, Mr. D aulerio a n d /o r th e ir co u n sel sh o u ld
n o t be h eld in c o n te m p t of co u rt, all of w hich th is C o u rt ta k e s u n d e r
ad v isem en t a t th is tim e. The C o u rt fu rth e r reserv es ju risd ic tio n to g ra n t,
m odify, or deny s u c h relief a s co n ta in e d h erein .
DONE and ORDERED a t P inellas C ounty, Florida, on J u ly 29, 2016.
H on. P am ela A.M. C am pbell

C ircuit C o u rt J u d g e
Copies fu rn ish e d to:
The A ttached Service List
Bollea v. G aw ker
Case No. 12 012447 Cl 11
Order Granting in P a rt P laintiff s M otion to V acate; D enying Stay of Execution Pending Appeal;
a n d D enying D efen d an t s M otion for Stay to Seek A ppellate Review
Page 8 o f 9
BOLLEA v. GAWKER
C ase No: 12 0 1 2 4 4 7 Cl 11
A tto rn ey S erv ice List
Alia L. Sm ith, E squire
Allison M. Steele, E squire
B arry A. C ohen, E squire
C h arles D. Tobin, E sq u ire
C h arles J . H arder, E squire
David R. H o u ston, E squire
D ouglas E. Mirell, E sq u ire
Gregg D. T hom as, E sq u ire
J e n n ife r J . M cG rath, E squire
K en n eth G. T urkel, E squire
M ichael B erry, E squire
M ichael D. Sullivan, E squire
M ichael W. G aines, E squire
P au l J . Safier, E squire
R achel E. F ugate, E squire
S eth D. B erlin, E sq u ire
S h a n e B. Vogt, E squire
Terri DeLeo
T im othy J . C onner, E sq u ire
R obert Rogers, E squire
asm ith@ lskslaw .com

asteele@ rahdertlaw .com
bcohen@ tam palaw firm .com
charles.tobin@ hklaw .com
chardciQ/ hmafirn .com
d h o u sto n @ h o u sto n atlaw .co m
dmirell@;hmafirm .com
gthom as@ tlolaw firm .com
im cgrath@ hm afirm .com
kturkel@ baiocuva.com
m berry@ lskslaw .com
m sullivan@ lskslaw .com
m gaines@ tam palaw firm .com
psafier@ lskslaw .com
rfugate@ tlolaw firm .com
sberlin@ lskslaw .com
svogt@bai ocuva.com
te ri.deleo@baj o cu v a .com
tim othy.conner@ hklaw .com
Ro b e r t .ro go r s@ hklaw .com
J a m e s C ase
iam escase@ aol.com
Bollea v. G aw ker
C ase No. 12 0 1 2 4 4 7 Cl 11
O rd er G ran tin g in P a rt P laintiff s M otion to V acate; D enying S tay of E xecution P en d in g Appeal;
a n d D enying D efen d an t s M otion for S tay to S eek A ppellate Review
Page 9 o f 9
Filing # 44907857 E-Filed 08/05/2016 05:34:34 PM
EXHIBIT B
DEPOSITION
CONFIDENTIAL
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 12012447-CI-011
vs.
LLC aka GAWKER MEDIA; et al.
Defendants.
______________________________________ /
DEFENDANT A.J. DAULERIOS RESPONSES TO

FINANCIAL WORTH INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to the Courts oral ruling at the hearing on May 29, 2015, Defendant A.J.
Daulerio hereby provides these responses to financial worth interrogatories.
INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSES
FINANCIAL WORTH INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State whether the documents you
are providing concerning your financial worth are authentic.
RESPONSE: Yes.
FINANCIAL WORTH INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify the amount of your
financial worth.
RESPONSE: Mr. Daulerios net worth is either zero or negative because his concrete
liabilities exceed his concrete assets. In addition, as set forth below, Mr. Daulerio also owns
shares in a privately-held start-up web publishing company RGFree, Inc. This company has not
been subject to valuation through sale, offer to purchase or other means, and Mr. Daulerio is
therefore unable to identify the amount of his financial worth; however, to date the company has
generated zero revenue and is therefore not a material asset at this time.
1
CONFIDENTIAL
FINANCIAL WORTH INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify your material assets and
liabilities.
RESPONSE: Mr. Daulerios material assets are as follows:
1.
A 44.7% ownership interest in RGFree, Inc. (RGFree). Because RGFree is a
privately-held start-up company, and there is no regular market for its shares, the value of this
ownership interest cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty. No valuation
has been performed on the company. Based on the fact that RGFree has not earned any revenue
to date, it is not material to Mr. Daulerios net worth at this time.
2.
5,900 shares in Gawker Media Group, Inc. (GMGI). Because GMGI is a
privately-held company, and there is no regular market for its shares, the value of Mr. Daulerios
interest in those shares cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. Based on the
valuation of GMGI by an independent third party, those shares are valued at $3,107.46.
3.
Checking and savings accounts holding $2,020.
Mr. Daulerios material liabilities are:

1.
Debt in the amount of $25,873.16.
2.
Housing payments. For the period August 2014 - August 2015, Mr. Daulerio had
the obligation to pay and has paid approximately $52,000 in housing costs.
FINANCIAL WORTH INTERROGATORY NO. 4: State whether you (a) maintain
the right to bring any action against another person or entity to recover a debt and the amount
thereof, and/or (b) are currently involved in such an action.
RESPONSE: No.
CONFIDENTIAL
Dated: June 4, 2015
THOMAS & LOCICERO PL

By:
/s/ GreseD. Thomas

Gregg D. Thomas
Florida Bar No.: 223913
Rachel E. Fugate
Florida Bar No.: 0144029
601 South Boulevard
P.O. Box 2602(33601)
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 984-3060
Facsimile: (813)984-3070
gthomas@tlolawfinTi.com
rfugate@tIolawfirm.com
Seth D. Berlin
Pro Hac Vice Number: 103440
Michael Sullivan
Michael Berry
Alia L. Smith
Paul J. Safier
LEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH & SCHULZ, LLP
1899 L Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 508-1122
Facsimile: (202) 861-9888
sberlin@lskslaw.com
inberrv@lskslaw.com
msullivan@lskslaw.com
asmith@lskslaw. com
psafier@lskslaw.com
Counsel for Defendant A.J. Daulerio
CONFIDENTIAL
VERIFICATION TO COME
CONFIDENTIAL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 4th day of June 2014,1caused a true and correct copy
of the foregoing to be served by email upon the following counsel of record:
Kenneth G. Turkel, Esq.
kturkel@BaioCuva.com
Shane B. Vogt, Esq.
shane.vogt@BaioCuva.com
Bajo Cuva Cohen & Turkel, P.A
100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel: (813)443-2199
Fax: (813)443-2193
David Houston, Esq.

Law Office of David Houston
dhouston@houstonatlaw. com
432 Court Street
Reno, NV 89501
Tel: (775) 786-4188
Charles J. Harder, Esq.

charder@HMAfirm.com
Douglas E. Mirell, Esq.
dmirell@HMAfirm.com
Sarah Luppen, Esq.
sluppen@HMAfirm.com
Harder Mirell & Abrams LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (424) 203-1600
Fax: (424) 203-1601
Attorneysfor Plaintiff
Barry A. Cohen, Esq.
bcohen@tampalawfirm.com
Michael W. Gaines
mgaines@tampalawfirm.com
Barry A. Cohen Law Group
201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1950
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel: (813) 225-1655
Fax: (813) 225-1921
Attorneysfor Defendant Heather Clem
/s/ Gregg D. Thomas
Attorney
Filing # 44907857 E-Filed 08/05/2016 05:34:34 PM
EXHIBIT C
Filing # 42532510 E-Filed 06/09/2016 12:59:53 PM

Plaintiff,
Case No.: 12012447-CI-011
vs.
LLC aka GAWKER MEDIA; et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________ /
AFFIDAVIT OF A.J. DAULERIO

I,
A. J. Daulerio, hereby declare under penalty of peijury that the following is true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

1.
I submit this affidavit to update the information presented in my responses to
financial worth interrogatories dated June 4, 2015.

2.
My assets are:
a.
A 44.7% ownership interest in RGFree, Inc. (RGFree), a privately-held
start-up media company. RGFree is not currently operational, and it has not earned any
revenue. As a result, my ownership interest in RGFree is not of material value.
b.
5,900 shares in Gawker Media Group, Inc. (GMGI).
c.
Checking and savings accounts holding approximately $13,000. The
money comes exclusively from gifts and some freelance writing work. I do not currently
have full-time employment.
3.
I do not own a home, a car, or any other material assets.
4.
My material liability is student loan debt in the amount of $26,378
STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
The foregoing Affidavit of A.J. Daulerio was SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me
this ^ th day of June 2016.
SCOTT BAILEY
Notary Public, State of New Yxk
No. 01BA6201502
Qualified in New York County
Commission Expires March 2 ,2 0 1 7
Notary Public, State
Filing # 44907857 E-Filed 08/05/2016 05:34:34 PM
EXHIBIT D
Page 1
1
IN A N D F O R P I N E L L A S C O U N T Y , F L O R I D A
2
Page 3
1
2
IN T H E C I R C U I T C O U R T O F T H E S I X T H J U D I C I A L C I R C U I T
M IC H A E L B E R R Y , E S Q U IR E
C IV IL D IV IS IO N
TE R R Y G E N E BOLLEA,
HOGAN,
P la in tiff,
Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP
S uite 1001
1 7 6 0 M a rk e t S tree t
p r o f e s s io n a lly k n o w n a s H U L K
5
P hiladelph ia, P en n sylvan ia 1 9 1 0 3
C ase No.
1 2 -0 1 2 4 4 7 -C I-0 1 1
6
vs.
G A W K E R M E D IA , L L C , a k a G A W K E R
- and 6
P A U L J. S A F IE R , E S Q U IR E
M E D I A , N I C K D E N T O N ; A .J .
8
L evine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP
S uite 2 0 0
W a s hin gton , D .C . 2 0 0 3 6
D A U L E R IO ,
1 8 9 9 L S treet, N .W .
D e fe n d a n ts .
/
10
- and -
11
10
H E A R IN G P R O C E E D IN G S B E F O R E
12
R A C H E L E . F U G A T E , E S Q U IR E
T H E H O N O R A B L E P A M E L A A .M . C A M P B E L L
13
DATE:
June 10, 2 0 1 6
14
15
11
T h o m as & LoC icero, P.L.

601 South B oulevard
12
T a m p a , Florida 3 3 6 0 6
13
T IM E :
9 : 0 6 a .m . t o 1 0 : 5 5 a .m .
14
16
PLACE:
17
18
P in e lla s C o u n t y C o u r t h o u s e
15
- and C E C I C U L P E P P E R B E R M A N , E S Q U IR E
B rann ock & H um phries, PA
1111 W e s t C a s s S treet
S uite 2 0 0
5 4 5 1 s t A v e n u e N o r th
C o u rtro o m B
16
S t . P e t e r s b u r g , F lo r id a
17
T a m p a , Florida 3 3 6 0 6
A ttorneys fo r D efe n d an t G a w k e r M ed ia, LLC,
19
R E P O R T E D BY:
20
A P P E A R A N C E S C O N T IN U E D A S F O L L O W S :
18
19
A a r o n T . P e r k in s , R P R
N o t a r y P u b lic , S t a t e o f
20
F lo r id a a t L a r g e
21
22
21
22
Pages
e t a l.
IN D E X
1 to 62
23
23
PAGE
24
P R O C E E D IN G S
2 4 R E P O R T E R 'S C E R T IF IC A T E
25
25
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Page 4
PROCEEDINGS
(C ourt called to o rd e r a t 9:06 a.m .)
THE COURT: All right. S o w e a re h e re on
C a s e No. 12-012447, Bollea vs. G aw ker. W e a re
h e re to d ay for a n u m b er of m otions.
B efore w e g e t into that, a re th e re any
prelim inary issu e s, Mr. T urkel?
MR. TURKEL: No, Ju d g e .
THE COURT: Mr. B erry?
MR. BERRY: Y our Honor, 1 w an t to clarify for
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
th e record. W e had a d iscu ssio n in th e hallw ay

b etw een co u n sel, a n d ev ery b o d y h a s a g re e d th at
th e re will be, no m atter w h at h a p p e n s h e re with
th e sta y m otions a n d th e re q u e st for relief th at
w e 're going to b e d iscu ssin g , th e re w on't b e any
execution p ro ceed in g s th a t will b e c o m m e n c e d until
th e en d of th e hearing at th e earliest.
MR. TURKEL: 1 think w h at h e 's saying is
while w e're sitting h e re arguing, w e 're not going
to b e executing o r docketing anything, which is
co n siste n t with w h en w e said w e would do it, until
J u n e 10th.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. BERRY: Until th e hearing is ad journed,
so nobody is racing to th e co u rth o u se, o u tsid e of
Page 2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
KENNETH G. TURKEL, ESQUIRE
3 SHANE B. VOGT, ESQUIRE
Bajo Cuva Cohen & Turkel, P.A.
4 100 North Tampa Street
Suite 1900
5 Tampa, Florida 33602
6
- and 7 KRISTIN A. NORSE, ESQUIRE
Kynes, Markman & Felman
8 100 South Ashley Drive
Suite 1300
9 Tampa, Florida 33602
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11
12
13
14
APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pages 1 - 4
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
th e c o u rth o u se .
THE COURT: O kay. G reat. Well, w h at a
w onderful a g re e m e n t.
O kay. S o th e n w e 're h e re for G aw k er
d e fe n d a n ts ' re q u e s t to s ta y p ending a p p e a l an d to
a d d r e s s th e a m o u n t of th e s u p e r s e d e a s bond. And
th e re is plaintiffs m otion to d e te rm in e
confidentiality of th e court re c o rd s th a t p e rtain s
to th e pricing study, plaintiffs m otion to
d e te rm in e th e confidentiality of cou rt re c o rd s
with th e financial w orth discovery, a n d th e C ourt
is going to give th e ruling on th e M ayer Brown,
M -a-y-e-r, Brown report.
W hy d o n 't w e s ta rt first with d e fe n d a n ts'
m otion to s ta y for ex ecu tio n of ju d g m en t.
Mr. B erry?
MR. BERRY: T h an k you, Y our Honor.
Y our Honor, a s plaintiff a rg u e d a t th e last
h earing an d a s th e C ourt n o ted previously and,
ag ain , n o ted in th e o rd e r on th e p e rm a n e n t
injunction th a t w a s e n te re d earlier this w eek,
this is a c a s e th a t is unlike a n y other. 1 think
at th e last h earing, plaintiffs co u n se l said
th e re w a s no c a s e like this c a s e . T h e ju d g m en t
th a t Y our H onor e n te re d earlier in th e w e e k is of
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
o u r in terest in preserv in g o u r right to a p p eal.

And, Y our Honor, en su rin g th a t a p p e a l is
m eaningful.
My clients fa c e financial ruin sim ply b e c a u s e
of this u n p re c e d e n te d verdict. Ultimately, th at
verdict could b e o v erturned or it could b e
re d u c e d . A s it s ta n d s now, if th ey fa c e th at
verdict today, if th e y fa c e th a t ju d g m en t today,
th ey will fa c e financial ruin. All w e 're asking,
Y our Honor, is to e x e rc ise th e authority th a t's in
your h a n d to give u s a fair sh o t a t th e a p p e a l
th a t w e h a v e all b e e n talking a b o u t for th e p a st
th re e y e a rs.
I'm n o t com ing to you to d a y asking for a
blank c h e c k to g o to th e a p p e lla te court. W e're
not se e k in g s o m e so rt of fre e ride. W e're not
se e k in g a n u n se c u re d stay . W h at w e're ask in g for
a n d w h a t w e put in o u r p a p e rs th a t w e filed
y e ste rd a y w a s a sta y of ex ecu tio n pending a p p e a l
with s e rio u s conditions. Mr. D enton, a s w e said
in th e p a p e r a n d now 1 ca n s a y th e s a m e for
Mr. D aulerio, a re literally willing to put their
m oney w h e re their m outh is. Both of th em will
p led g e their s h a r e s of G aw k er M edia G roup, Inc.,
a s secu rity for th e ju d g m e n t th a t h a s b e e n e n te re d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
with th e C ourt pending th e disposition of th e

a p p e a ls. T his is th eir principal a s s e t, an d this
is w h at th e plaintiff would get, ultim ately, if w e
w e re to ex e c u te .
In o u r p a p e rs a n d in th e b en ch m em o th at
plaintiff filed, w e 'v e all a g re e d th a t th e C ourt
h a s th e authority to sta y ex ecution. T his is a
ju d g m e n t th a t Y our H onor e n te re d th a t includes
both m o n etary d a m a g e s a n d th e injunctive relief.
T h u s, R ule 9 .3 1 0 (a) g o v ern s. A gain, plaintiff h a s
c o n c e d e d a s m uch in th e b e n c h m em o th a t w a s filed
on W e d n e sd a y . U nder R ule 9 .3 1 0 (a) a sta y pending
review c a n b e conditioned on th e posting of a good
a n d sufficient bond o r o th e r conditions o r both.
A s th e c a s e law th a t w e h a v e cited m a k e s
clear, a n d th a t actually is cited in th e
plaintiffs p a p e rs a s well, you a re v e ste d with
discretion a b o u t th e n a tu re a n d th e ex te n t of th e
security. Effectively, th a t p re s e n ts you with two
q u e stio n s. First, should a sta y b e e n te re d , and,
se c o n d , u n d e r w h at co nditions?
H ere w e'v e outlined in o u r p a p e rs - I'm not
going to go into g re a t d e p th a b o u t it - th e re is
constitutional is s u e s co n cern in g th e right to
a p p e a l. T h e re is fed eral First A m en d m en t an d d u e
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
unprecedented size. It's based on a verdict of

unprecedented scale.
During the course of the litigation over the
past three years, Your Honor has repeatedly noted
that this case raises significant issues that will
ultimately have to be decided by the appeals
court. There is constitutional issues about the
right to privacy, about the First Amendment.
There is issues about the elem ents of the torts.
about what's com pensable dam ages for each of those
torts. There is evidentiary issues that we sat in
the courthouse and debated both before the trial
and during the trial. At each stage we have all
understood that those are important issues.
They're significant issues that the appeals court
needs to decide.
Today, Your Honor, I'm coming before you to
ask for a meaningful opportunity to bring those
issues to the appeals court. 1 understand my
clients understand that the plaintiff wants
security for the judgment. That's now been
entered. What we are asking today, Your Honor,
and what we respectfully would request from you is
to balance those two interests: the plaintiffs
interest on the one hand in securing his judgment.
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
Page 8
23
24
25
Pages 5 - 8
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
p ro c e s s is s u e s . T h e re is Florida is s u e s
co n cern in g th e constitutional right to a p p e a l.
H ere, th e s ta y should b e issu e d s o th a t our
a p p e a l is not effectively m oot. A s 1 said ,
w ithout a stay , e a c h d e fe n d a n t will im m ediately
fa c e financial ruin. T h e ultim ate resu lt of th e
a p p e a l will b e m e a n in g le ss. But let m e ju st g et
dow n to b ra s s ta c k s a n d talk a b o u t th e conditions
for th e stay.
A s 1 u n d e rsta n d it from th e b en ch m em o th at
plaintiff filed an d w h at w a s in th e p revious
filings b efo re th e last h earin g -- a n d 1 d o n 't
know if this h a s c h a n g e d . W e c a n d is c u ss it later
if it h a s.
But th e plaintiff h a s effectively a s k e d th e
C ourt to apply th e form ula for au to m atic s ta y s and
m oney-only ju d g m e n ts u n d e r 9.31 0 (b ) or sectio n
4 5 .0 4 5 , e v e n th o u g h h e c o n c e d e s th a t n eith er of
th o s e th in g s actually apply h ere, b e c a u s e w e 're in
th e 9 .3 1 0 (a) land.
D e fe n d a n ts sim ply c a n n o t p o st $ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
bond a t this point or p o st a bond of $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
p e r d e fe n d a n t. If th e sta y is conditioned on
e ith e r of th o s e te rm s, no d e fe n d a n t could g e t a
stay . Effectively, a high bond like th a t would be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
th e s a m e a s denying a stay.
If th e plaintiff th e n a tte m p te d to e x e c u te
u n d e r th o s e conditions, a s 1 sa y , e a c h of
d e fe n d a n t would fa c e financial ruin, an d ,
effectively, th e plaintiff, you w ould a s s u m e h a s
in te re st in collecting on th e ju d g m en t, but it
w ould e n s u re th e re w ould b e nothing for him to
collect on.
H ere w e b eliev e th a t th e secu rity sh o u ld b e
re a s o n a b le u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s , w hich is w h at
th e law s a y s . And th o s e c irc u m sta n c e s include th e
constitutional c o n sid e ra tio n s a n d d isc u ssio n on
p a p e rs an d th e w eighty a n d significant is s u e s th at
w e'v e all d is c u s s e d th a t will ultim ately b e
p re s e n te d to th e a p p e a ls court.
With o u r p a p e rs , w e su b m itted detailed
affidavits a b o u t o u r cu rren t financial positions,
an d th o s e c irc u m sta n c e s o u g h t to b e co n sid ered .
And th a t's w h e re 1 would like to turn you to now.
Now, 1 will kind of g o with th em from , p e rh a p s,
th e sim p le st to th e w eig h tiest is s u e s h ere.
First, Mr. D aulerio. His is th e sim p lest
c a s e . T h e re is no d isp u te, 1 b elieve, from eith er
sid e th a t h e h a s a n e g a tiv e n e t w orth. H e h a s no
ho m e, h e h a s no car, h e h a s n o m aterial a s s e ts .
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 10
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
A s d o c u m e n te d in his affidavit, h e h a s checking

a n d sa v in g s a c c o u n ts, but th o s e h a v e le s s m o n ey in
th em th a n th e stu d e n t lo a n s th a t h e h a s d e b t on.
H e h a s no c u rren t full-time em ploym ent, no m e a n s
of reg u lar incom e. H e d o e s h a v e a n o w nership
in terest in R G 3, w hich is a sta rtu p m ed ia co m p an y
th a t w a s d is c u s s e d a t trial. T h at co m p an y is not
op eratio n al. It's not e a rn e d a n y rev en u e, and
it's w orthless.
H e d o e s, though, h a v e his 5 ,9 0 0 s h a r e s of
G aw ker M edia G roup, Inc., w h at w e'v e called GMGI
th ro u g h o u t th e p ro ceed in g s. And although not in
th o se p a p e rs, 1 ca n re p re s e n t to th e C ourt th a t he
is willing to p led g e all of th o s e s h a r e s to th e
C ourt a s security pending th e disposition of
a p p eal. A gain, this is his m o st m eaningful a s s e t.
T he s e c o n d d e fe n d a n t th at 1 will talk a b o u t
is G aw ker M edia. For G aw ker M edia, w e subm itted
two affidavits, o n e from Ms. Dietrick, which
a tta c h e d a b a la n c e sh e e t, a n o th e r from David C arr
w ho is a bond broker in T am pa.
W hat th o s e affidavits sh o w an d w h at th e
b a la n c e s h e e t sh o w s is th a t G aw ker h a s no ability
to p o st a m eaningful bond a t this time.
Ms. Dietrick's affidavit ex p lain s th e cu rren t
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
financial position of th e co m p an y . It could

alre a d y b e in a dire financial position, ev en
setting a s id e th e ju d g m e n t issu e . A s Ms. Dietrick
explains, th e re is c a s h flow is s u e s within th e
co m p an y e v e n w ithout a ju d g m en t. T his h a s b e e n
c a u s e d by e x p e n s e s incurred in this a n d o th er
litigation.
Following th e verdict th a t w a s e n te re d h ere,
a s Ms. Dietrick ex p lained, th e co m p an y h a s hired
p ro fessio n als to e v a lu a te its op tio n s in
anticipation of th e ju d g m en t th a t you e n te re d this
w eek . And th e conclusion is it sim ply d o e s not
h a v e fre e c a s h flow to p o st a m eaningful bond. It
certainly d o e s n 't h a v e anything m aterial relative
to th e a m o u n t of th e ju d g m en t o r th e $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
bond th a t would b e required u n d e r th e sta tu te . It
h a s no real e s ta te , it h a s no significant tangible
a s s e ts .
A s th e b a la n c e s h e e t from May 31 st, w hich is
th e last point th a t w e h av e, pro form a financials,
th e co m p a n y 's liabilities e x c e e d its a s s e ts . At
th a t tim e it h ad two e sse n tia l a s s e ts , $5.3
million in c a s h on h an d , an d th en $ 1 1 .9 million in
a c c o u n ts receivable.
But it a lso h ad significant liabilities. T h e
Pages 9 - 1 2
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
th re e th a t a re m o st m eaningful for th e s e p u rp o se s
a re a term loan from a co m p a n y called C olum bus
N ova, th a t's $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ; a term loan from the
Silicon Valley B ank th a t's o v er $ 6 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ; and
th en a letter of credit from Silicon V alley Bank
th a t's o v er $ 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . T h o se lo an s an d letters
of credit a re s e c u re d by th e c o m p a n y 's c a s h and
rec e iv a b les. In addition, th e re is a c o m p an y on
o n e of th e lo a n s co n cern in g th e ratio of a s s e ts to
liabilities. And, ag ain , this is ex p lain ed in th e
p a p e rs. G iven th a t situation, th ey c a n n o t pay th e
m aterial a m o u n t relative to th e ju d g m e n t a s
security.
O n c e th e verdict w a s re n d e re d , G aw k er a sk e d
David C arr of Willis T o w ers W atso n , w hich, again,
a s ex p lain ed in his affidavit, is o n e of th e
w orld's la rg e st bond bro k ers. T h ey a s k e d Mr. C arr
to explore w h e re a co m p a n y in G aw k er's position
could s e c u re a n a p p e a l bond. T h e sh o rt a n sw e r is
no.
A s ex p lain ed in Mr. C arr's affidavit, he
looked a t th e au d ited financials for GMGI. He
looked a t th e b a la n c e s h e e t for th e c o m p an y a s of
th e en d of th e first q u a rte r of 20 1 6 , w hich is
right a fte r th e verdict w a s re n d e re d , an d
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 14
book value, what its

e q u ity was. H e th e n went out to five different
bond com panies and asked them, Would a company in
this financial situation with this book value,
could they get a supersedeas bond for $50,000,000.
T h e a n s w e r w a s he could, but the companies would
n e e d fu ll c o lla te ra l. They need either a letter
o f c re d it o r c a s h .
explains in her affidavit,

s h e c h e c k e d w ith the company's bank and asked them
if th e y could g e t a letter of credit, and the
a n s w e r w a s y e s , but only if you provide cash
c o lla te ra l, w h ic h , a s 1 have already explained,
th e y s im p ly do not have. The bottom line is
G a w k e r M e d ia cannot secure a bond, and it cannot
p le d g e c a s h in th e amount that is material to the
$140,000,000 judgment.
That brings me to the last defendant, Nick
Denton. Mr. Denton, like the others, has provided
a detailed financial affidavit. It explains what
his current financial situation is with each of
his accounts. He has a retirement account. He
has other accounts th a t, in total, have a little
over $50,000, and that includes money that he
recently took out of his retirement account so
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
e s tim a te d th e c o m p a n y 's
A s M s. D ie tric k
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
th at h e could pay his living e x p e n s e s .

H e a lso h a s a condom inium th a t's alread y
su b je c t to a m o rtg ag e of 1.7 million, w hich, a s he
exp lain ed in his affidavit, h e 's now seek in g to
rent an d is m oving into a le ss ex p e n siv e hom e.
H e's going to u s e th a t rent m o n ey so th a t h e 's
ab le to su p p o rt him self. T h at le a v e s his
principal a s s e t, which is his ow n ersh ip in terest
in G aw ker M edia G roup, Inc.
A s explained in his affidavit an d a s w e
talked a b o u t before in th e s e p ro c e e d in g s recent,
h e o w n s 4 5 million s h a r e s a n d o p tions in the
com pany. T h at's roughly 30 p e rc e n t of th e
com pany, 29.2 p ercen t, give o r ta k e . H e is
willing to p led g e all of his s h a r e s to th e court
a s security for an y ju d g m en t following a p p eal.
H e's willing to d o th a t on b eh alf of himself,
Mr. D aulerio, an d th e com pany.
Now, G aw ker M edia G roup, Inc., is a private
co m pany, s o w e d o n 't know, you know, th e v a lu e s of
th e s h a re s , but in th e n et w orth p h a s e of th e
c a s e , plaintiff's e x p e rts said for p u rp o s e s of
punitive d a m a g e s only, th ey e stim a te d th e v alue of
GMGI. And b a s e d on Mr. D en to n 's o w nership
in terest of th e co m p an y , th o s e s h a re s , using
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
plaintiff's e x p e rt's m ethodology, would b e o v er

$ 8 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . W e d isp u ted th a t valuation a t th e
tim e, but th a t's th e v alu e th e plaintiff put on
th e s h a re s .
T his is esse n tia lly all of Mr. D en to n 's n et
w orth. It's effectively all th e plaintiff could
reco v er from th e d e fe n d a n ts if th ey w e re to
e x e c u te . W e a re willing to e n te r into an
in strum ent to p le d g e th o s e s h a r e s to th e C ourt a s
security to e n s u re th a t w e h a v e a m eaningful right
to a p p e a l.
A s 1 said a t th e o u tse t, if no sta y is
g ran ted , th e harm will b e irrep arab le. It will
m ean certain financial ruin for all th re e
d e fe n d a n ts. It will affect -- it will im pact not
only th em but th e co m p a n y 's c u rren t creditors. W e
u n d e rsta n d th a t plaintiff h a s a n in terest in
seek in g security for his ju d g m en t. W e h av e tak en
tim e. W e h a v e em ployed o th e r p eo p le to c o m e up
with a solution to b a la n c e th a t interest, th a t
in terest in security a n d ju d g m e n t with th e
in terest in a right to a p p e a l th a t m e a n s
som ething.
W e'v e u n d ertak en a s e rio u s an aly sis, a n d w h at
w e a re offering is a s e rio u s condition. W e h av e
Pages 13- 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 17
p led g ed w hat, b e tw e e n th e th re e d e fe n d a n ts, is th e
m o st m eaningful a s s e t th e y h a v e . A nd, ag ain , it's
effectively w h a t th e plaintiff could g e t if h e
w e re to e x e c u te . T h e s h a r e s of stock, th e
o w n ersh ip in te re st in GMGI, this is a co m p an y th a t
Mr. D enton h a s built o v e r th e p a s t 12 y e a rs. This
is all of his financial equity. T his is all of
his s w e a t equity. W e're willing to p le d g e it all.
All w e a s k is a sim ple opportunity to ta k e our
c a s e to th e a p p e a ls cou rt an d h a v e it d e c id ed
w ithout m y clients being throw n into financial
ruin.
W e respectfully re q u e st, Y our H onor, to give
u s th a t fair a n d m eaningful s h o t a t a n a p p eal.
THE CO U RT: S o 1 h a v e re a d th ro u g h th e
paperw ork, th e p lead in g s. T h e d e fe n d a n ts a n d th e
plaintiffs h a v e very g o o d a n d skillful law yers.
T h e C ourt h a s h a d a n opportunity to review
s o m e financials during th e punitive d a m a g e p h a se ,
during th e trial p h a s e , a n d now . And 1 will sa y
th a t ju st from m y review -- a n d 1 d o n 't h a v e a
te a m of folks in th e b a c k to d o an a n a ly sis -th ey s e e m to b e significantly dw indling, th e
value, th e s h a re s .
T h e d e fe n s e h a v e fought all along th e w ay any
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
d isco v ery into v alu e an d a s s e ts . And a t our last

h earing on M ay 25th, th e d e fe n s e ag ain w ere
objecting to a n y kind of discovery.
S o w h at 1w ould like your c o m m e n ts on is if 1
w e re to g ra n t a sta y u n d e r certain conditions,
w h a t kind of d isco v ery - a n d you alluded to so m e
of it in your p a p e rs -- but w h at kind of d iscovery
would th e d e fe n s e a g r e e to ?
MR. BERRY: T h e sh o rt a n sw e r, 1 think, is
th a t y o u 'v e a lre a d y e n te re d o rd e rs requiring u s to
fill in th o s e financial inform ation s h e e ts , which
p rovides e x te n siv e d a ta an d d o cu m en tation.
THE COURT: T h e fact inform ation s h e e t
a tta c h e d to th e financial ju d g m e n t?
MR. BERRY: C orrect. And th a t alread y
req u ires u s to provide su b sta n tia l inform ation.
And a lot of th a t inform ation, th e plaintiff h a s
b e e n given th ro u g h o u t discovery.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
W e w ould b e willing to u n d e rta k e w h a tev er

d isco v ery - 1 m ean , w ithout -- it's hard to sa y
in a v acu u m . But, 1 m e a n , a t this point w e h av e
to provide o u r financial d a ta . T h ey will h av e
e v e ry jot an d tittle from G aw k er M edia, from A.J.
D aulerio, a n d Nick D enton within th o s e financial
inform ation s h e e ts .
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
B eyond that, I'm not s u re w h at you're

contem plating. But w e would certainly b e willing
to d is c u s s it. 1 c a n 't d en y th a t th e a s s e ts a re
dwindling. And w e h av e m a d e th at cle a r to th e
plaintiff rep eated ly th ro u g h o u t th e litigation.
And w e d o n 't n e e d to g e t into th e re a s o n s for it,
but b e c a u s e of th e litigation th a t's b e e n filed
h e re an d e lse w h e re a g a in st th e co m p an y , th ey h av e
b e e n forced to d efen d an d not b e e n ab le to g e t o u t
from u n d e r that. T h a t's th e financial picture. 1
m ean , it kind of is w h at it is a t this point.
THE COURT: O kay. Well, 1 g u e s s o n e of th e
things th a t 1 didn't s e e in an y b o d y 's p aperw ork
w e re -- in reading through th e ru les an d reading
through th e different c a s e s , 1 d o n 't s e e g u id a n c e
to th e C ourt a s to th e role of sym pathy, you know,
em otional issu e s.
T h e p lead in g s sh o w h e re it is w h at it is, but
w e all h a v e c h o ic e s to m ak e along th e w ay. And
while both s id e s h av e very skilled a n d talen ted
law yers, th e p arties th e m se lv e s h av e m a d e c h o ic e s
along th e w ay. And so 1 g u e s s it is w h at c h o ic e s
along th e w ay -- should a n y of th o s e c h o ic e s c o m e
into play a t this point in th e C ourt's
determ ination of w h a t's fair?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 m ean , really, w e sta rt o u t th e very

beginning a s p e c t to play -- to ed it a n d play th e
video o r not, to Mr. H o u sto n 's letter th a t sa y s,
J u s t give it b ack to u s a n d d o n 't play it an y m o re
an d w alk aw ay, an d now, reportedly, both sid e s
h av e s p e n t o v er $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 of legal fe e s an d both
s id e s being locked into th e constitutional rights
th at th ey h av e, w hich certainly th ey do h av e them .
And 1 am certainly co g n izan t of that. But 1 g u e s s
th ey h av e c o m e a t a price to d efen d for both
sid es.
S o th e re h av e b e e n lots of c h o ic e s along th e
w ay, an d m ore th an ju st this litigation, of
dwindling a s s e ts of th e d e fe n d a n ts, but - okay.
MR. BERRY: 1 g u e s s 1 would s a y a few things.
First, 1 g u e s s in so m e re s p e c ts w e're not
asking for sy m p ath y but w e're asking you for w hat
th e law d o e s say , is ju st b a s e d on th e conditions
an d th e circ u m sta n c es. And th e c irc u m sta n c e s now
of w h ere w e a re is exactly w h e re w e are.
And th e fram ew ork -- an d , again, I'm h ap p y to
talk a b o u t it, particularly with re s p e c t to th e
First A m en d m en t a n d th e in d e p e n d e n t a p p ellate
right of review. And w e'v e in our p a p e rs provided
p re c e d e n t w h e re th e s e kind of w eighty q u e stio n s
P a g e 18
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
Page 20
Pages 17- 20
Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a re p re s e n te d . M ost recently in th e S n y d e r vs.

P h e lp s c a s e , w h e re th e cou rt th e re reco g nized
that, notw ithstanding th e verdict th a t th e s e folks
could not pay, th a t th e re w a s im portant is s u e s and
provided low er bond re q u ire m e n ts s o th ey could
m ak e it to th e n ext level of a p p e a l, to th e point
that, you know, so m e b o d y - th e church, th e le a d e r
of th e church, b o n d ed their property, w hich is
exactly w h at w e 're ask in g h ere. S o th a t's point
o n e.
T h e s e c o n d point is a s far a s th e c h o ices
along th e w ay, Y our Honor, w e obviously disp u te
so m e of th e fa c ts in th e underlying m otivations of
th e law suit an d w ould ra th e r not dwell on th o s e at
th e m om ent. T h e sim ple fact of th e m a tter is, a s
a d e fe n d a n t, w e did not h a v e a ch o ice a b o u t
w h e th e r to b e draw n into court, nor w h at it would
ta k e to reso lv e th e c a s e . W e h a d to d efend
o u rse lv e s.
A s h a s b e e n publicly rep o rted s o m e tim e ago,
th e plaintiff m a d e a c h o ice to d ism iss a claim
b e c a u s e h e found out th a t it w a s tied to our
in su ra n c e c o v e ra g e . W e h ad no ch o ice but pay out
of p o ck et for o u r d e fe n s e . T hey knew that. T hat
w a s their choice. W e h ad no ch o ice but to
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
s h a re s , 1 think th e re would n e e d to b e so m e
discovery th a t said w h at h a p p e n e d . He had a lot
of it an d now h e h a s minimal.
MR. BERRY: T he plaintiff alread y h a s th at
inform ation, Y our Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BERRY: And th ey cited it to you in their
discovery motion last tim e. T he u p sh o t of it is
th at th e in v estm en t - o r th e m oney, th e loan th at
c a m e from C o lu m b u s N ova required him to give over
his s h a re s . And, ag ain , th e re a so n th a t w a s d o n e
w a s b e c a u s e th e co m p an y w a s facing litigation
c o s ts from this an d o th er things, an d th ey had no
choice. And, 1 m ean , 1 c a n 't -- w ithout getting
into our se ttle m e n t d isc u ssio n s an d waiving
privilege, 1 c a n 't d is c u s s th at with you.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. BERRY: But th a t's w h at h a p p e n e d to th o se
s h a re s . This is w h at h e h a s. H e is saying a s of
today, 1 am going all in; I'm putting all my chips
on th e table. S h o rt of that, I'm not su re w h at
e ls e h e could do.
THE COURT: O kay. Mr. Vogt, do you w an t to
re sp o n d ?
MR. BERRY: Sorry. 1would ju st sa y t h a t --
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
co n tin u e to d efen d this litigation an d o th e r

litigation sp a w n e d by Mr. Thiel a t th e helm of -at th e h e a d of Mr. H ard er th ro u g h o u t th e country.
1 d o n 't w a n t to n e c e ssa rily put th e p ro b lem s in
this courtroom , but th a t w a s not o u r choice.
THE COURT: 1 said both s id e s m a d e ch o ices.
MR. BERRY: Right. T h at w a s not o u r choice.
W h at w e 're ask in g for you to d o to d a y an d w h at w e
respectfully a re ask in g this C ourt is th a t given
th e c irc u m sta n c e s th a t w e fa c e now, th a t all of us
fa c e now, to c o n sid e r th o s e things, an d to
e n te r - to allow u s a sta y b a s e d on real
security, th e only real tan g ib le a s s e t s th a t w e
h a v e to offer s o th a t w e c a n g e t to th e a p p e a ls
court an d h av e it d e c id e e a c h of th e s e is s u e s from
D ay 1, you know, starting b ack w h en this law suit
w a s first filed. T h e re h a s obviously b e e n strong
d is a g re e m e n ts a m o n g th e litigants a n d a m o n g th e
judiciary.
THE COURT: 1 g u e s s h e re is p art of my
co n cern , th o u g h . Really, Mr. D enton h ad a t o n e
point h e re -- a n d this is on th e bottom of p a g e 8
an d fo o tn o te 4 of y our m otion. Mr. D enton had
4 2 .6 p e rc e n t of GMGI an d now h e 's g o t 29 p ercen t
of GMGI. S o w hile h e 's willing to p le d g e th o se
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
Page 24
1
I'll m a k e a re p re s e n ta tio n to th e C o u rt. D u rin g
th a t tim e p e rio d , w e w e re n o t g e ttin g - p rio r to
th a t in v e s tm e n t, m y la w firm w a s n o t g e ttin g p a id .
The com pany
-- th is
litig a tio n a n d th e
litig a tio n - 1 c a n n o t e m p h a s iz e e n o u g h --
th r o u g h o u t th e c o u n try h a s p u s h e d th e m to th e
b rin k , a n d th a t's n o t a c h o ic e th a t G a w k e r m a d e .
T H E C O U R T : T h a n k you.
M r. V o g t?
Honor.
10
M R . V O G T : T h a n k you, Y o u r
11
1 g u e s s I'll s ta rt w ith , T h e p ro b le m th a t
12
w e 're re a lly fa c in g to d a y is th a t d e s p ite th e
13
c la im o f im p e n d in g fin a n c ia l ru in a n d th e
14
im p o rta n c e o f th e is s u e s th a t w e 're a d d re s s in g
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
to d a y , w e g o t a 2 0 -p a g e m o tio n w ith
23
o 'c lo c k .
24
25
11
e x h ib its
a n d fo u r a ffid a v its y e s te rd a y a t o n e o 'c lo c k .

T H E C O U R T : 1 g o t m in e a t 2 :3 0 .
M R . V O G T : V e ry , v e ry im p o rta n t is s u e s . A n d
th a t's h o w th e y w e re a d d re s s e d . T h is v e rd ic t w a s
re n d e re d o v e r tw o m o n th s a g o . W e h a d a h e a rin g on
th e 2 5 th w h e re w e d is c u s s e d th a t th is w a s c o m in g
u p . A n d n o th in g w a s d o n e u n til y e s te rd a y a t o n e
It m a k e s th is e n tire p ro c e s s m u c h m o re
d iffic u lt. W e 're fa c e d w ith s e lf-s e rv in g
Pages 21 - 24
Page 25
Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
affidavits a b o u t financial condition th a t w e

h a v e n 't h ad an y ability to te s t o r verify. As
Y our H onor correctly no ted , o n e of th e th ings w e
did a t th e h earin g on th e 25th is -- th e re h ad n 't
b e e n a bond m otion filed y e t -- w a s w e a s k e d for
financial d isco v ery s o th a t w e could b e p re p a re d
for this, a n d th e y o b jected , you know, basically
tying o u r a rm s behind o u r back.
W e d is a g re e factually a n d legally with
everything in th e m otion for stay , for th e m o st
part. M ost of th e fa c ts a re n 't relev an t u n d er
Florida law. T h e c a s e s th e y cite a re n 't binding
p re c e d e n t. And, in e s s e n c e , w h at th e y 're doing
to d ay is w h at th e y h a v e d o n e th ro u g h o u t this
en tire o rd eal, w hich is th e y a re refusing to
a c c e p t responsibility for their actio n s, an d th ey
w a n t sp e c ia l tre a tm e n t.
T hey w a n t their own n e w sw o rth in e ss te s t to
apply. T h ey w an t to file m otions w h e n e v e r they
w a n t to file th em , an d th e y w a n t to h a v e th e C ourt
ignore Florida law on b o n d s a n d follow o th er
jurisdictions, b e c a u s e th e y d o n 't w an t to p o st
bond for a p ay o u t on a $ 1 4 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ju d gm ent.
1 think, b e c a u s e of th e situation th a t w e're
h e re an d getting th e s e files y e s te rd a y an d th e s e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
offers of stock, 1 think th a t th e P latt c a s e , the

1
S e c o n d DCA P latt c a s e is pretty m uch on s q u a re
2
with w h at you h a v e h ere. O n e of th e th in gs it
3
sa y s , quite frankly, is th a t w h en you h a v e a
4
d e fe n d a n t in dire financial straits, it so rt of
5
m ilitates a g a in s t a stay . But, obviously, w e
6
c a n 't verify w h a t's b e e n sa id s o far.
7
S o 1 think w h a t w e w e re planning to do, Your
8
H onor -- a n d w e actually w orked a lot on this
9
after w e receiv ed th e m otion y e ste rd a y , is w e had
10
a p ro p o se d for G aw ker, w hich w a s a tem p o rary stay 11
of execu tio n . T h ey d o w h a t th e y h a v e a lread y
12
pro m ised to d o tod ay , w hich is th e y p le d g e
13
Mr. D en to n 's s h a r e s . T h ey p le d g e his options.
14
T h ey p le d g e Mr. D aulerio's s h a re s . And in
15
addition to that, th e C ourt im p o se s s o m e extrem ely 16
strict conditions w hich it is au th o rized to do.
17
W e're in no w ay co n c e d in g w h a t th e y 're doing,
18
th a t th e sto ck is in a n y w ay a sufficient security
19
for a bond a t this point, but w e d o n 't h a v e th e
20
d isco v ery th a t P latt s a y s w e a re legally entitled
21
to a t th is point, b e c a u s e th e y h a v e stalled and
22
refu sed .
23
S o give u s th e sto ck , give u s th e options,
24
p le d g e th e secu rity a n d , in addition, im p o se so m e
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P age 26
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
conditions. And th e conditions th a t w e would

w ant, Y our H onor -- obviously, th e re will b e term s
a n d conditions a s s o c ia te d with th e sto ck itself,
certificates being e n d o rse d , so all th a t's rightly
entitled v e s ts in Mr. Bollea im m ediately upon th e
dism issal of an y a p p e a l o r th e affirm ance of any
final ju d g m en t. T h o se s h a r e s would b e held in
tru st by th e law yers for Mr. Bollea. W e would
n e e d verification th a t all n e c e s s a ry
au th o rizatio n s an d a p p ro v als to tra n sfe r th o se
s h a re s , th e options, a s well a s Mr. D aulerio's
s h a r e s h av e b e e n d one.
W e will w an t full co m p lian ce with p a ra g ra p h s
6, 7, 8 of th e final ju dgm ent, which a re th e fact
inform ation s h e e ts . W e would a lso w an t th e full
co m p lian ce with p a ra g ra p h 5 of th e final ju d gm ent,
a s well a s th e p e rm a n e n t injunction. In addition
to that, w e would like so m e very, very sh o rt tim e
fra m e s on discovery s o th a t w e can hopefully,
d e p e n d in g on your calen d ar, h av e a very quick
tu rn aro u n d an d g e t b ack in h e re s o w e can h a v e a
m eaningful d iscu ssio n -THE COURT: (Indicating).
MR. V O G T : 1 know, Your H onor -- a b o u t th e
a m o u n t of th e bond.
Page 28
T h e sc h e d u le th a t w e w ould p ro p o se is th a t w e
w ould se rv e discovery in aid of execu tio n on
M onday. T h ey would h a v e until th e following
M onday to re sp o n d . T h ey w ould th en , th e following
w eek, h a v e a c o rp o ra te re p re se n ta tiv e of G aw ker
M edia, a s well Mr. D enton a n d Mr. D aulerio and
Ms. Dietrick, a s well Mr. C arr, w ho sub m itted
affidavits in su p p o rt of th e m otion th ey filed,
av ailable for d ep o sitio n s. W e w ould a lso like to
b e ab le to obtain letters rogatory a n d an y related
o rd e rs so th a t w e can obtain discovery in th e
United Kingdom , H ungary, a n d in th e C ay m an
Islands.
THE COURT: Could you give m e w h at's th e
s ta tu s of th e o rd e r th a t 1 a lre a d y e n te re d on
th o s e letters rogatory?
MR. VOGT: W e g o t th o s e d o cu m en ts, so m e of
th em . W e d o n 't believe it's a co m p lete
production. T hey w e re actually s u p p o s e d to b e
pro d u ced , 1 believe, on th e final d a y of trial,
a n d th ey w e re w ithheld until after th e trial
e n d e d , until w e finally got th em . But w e think
th a t th o s e a re incom plete. And w e'v e g o t so m e
inform ation in th o s e th a t ra ise s o m e new is s u e s
a b o u t w hen this tru st w a s s e t up, th e n a m e of th e
Pages 25 - 28
Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
co m p a n y chan g in g .
T h e re is a loan involved. A pparently, a loan
a g a in s t th o s e s h a r e s is a t is s u e th a t w e w ere
u n a w a re of befo re. S o th o s e a re th e ty p e s of
th in g s th a t w e w ould w a n t to v e t o u t to s e e if,
p e rh a p s, th a t tru st is s u e w e w e re talking a b o u t
all along is, you know, w h a t w e think it is.
C ay m an Islands, th a t's w h e re G aw k er M edia, Inc.,
is b a s e d . H ungary, w e w a n t th e ta x retu rn s from
Kinja a n d th in g s of th a t n atu re. And th e n to th e
e x te n t th a t w e n e e d to co n d u c t - to issu e
s u b p o e n a s d u c e s tecu m , d e p o sitio n s of n o n p arties,
w e w ould w a n t th a t a s well.
W e w ould a ls o w a n t a condition th a t th ey
w o n 't d issip a te a n y a s s e t s th a t m ay o th erw ise b e
su b je c t to ex ecu tio n , w h e th e r th ro u g h sa le,
rem oval, alienation, tran sfer, anything like that,
o r dilute Mr. D en to n 's sto ck , his options, or
Mr. D aulerio's sto c k a n y fu rth er w ithout com ing
b ack to th e C ourt for prior approval. O bviously,
o rdinary living e x p e n s e s a n d th in g s of th a t n atu re
w ould not b e a n is s u e of that.
THE CO U RT: 1 d o n 't know. H e ju st
tra n sfe rre d w h a t w a s it -- $ 4 5 ,0 0 0 for his
ordinary living e x p e n s e s o u t of his IRA, 45, 50,
Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
s o m e w h e re in th a t ran g e.
MR. VOGT: And th e two-m illion-dollar
m o rtg ag e th a t h e took out on his co n d o w a s taken
o u t during th e p e n d e n c y of this c a s e . S o, y eah ,
th e re is a n u m b er of is s u e s like th a t th a t 1
think, a s th e y a re crying poor, n e e d to b e vetted
out. And w e c a n d o th a t with ex p e d ite d discovery.
And th en , obviously, w e w ould w a n t th em to
a g re e th a t th e re b e no s a le of all or
su b stan tially all of th e a s s e ts o r th e sto ck of
G aw k er M edia, G aw k er M edia G roup, Inc., or Kinja
w hile th e s e is s u e s a re pending.
T h e re h a s b e e n ru m o rs an d d isc u s s io n s of
potential s a le s of th e co m p an y . W e h a v e this
in v estm en t o r loan by C o lu m b u s N ova th a t took
place, ru m o rs of Univision com ing in an d m ay b e
potentially buying a s s e t s or m aking an investm ent,
you know. W e w ouldn't an y of th a t to o c c u r while
this is going on until w e c a n figure everything
out.
W e think th a t th a t's a very re a s o n a b le
p ro p o sal u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c es. It's a lot in
line with w h at th e d e fe n d a n ts h a v e a lre a d y a g re e d
to do. A nd, you know, w e ju st -- w e ju st w an t
w h a t w e 're entitled to in o rd e r to h a v e a
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
m eaningful hearin g on this.

THE COURT: How long do you think you would
w a n t for all th a t before you w ould w a n t to co m e
b a c k ? How long d o you think all th a t would ta k e ?
MR. TURKEL: I'm sorry. Did you h e a r th at
q u e stio n ?
MR. VOGT: Y es.
THE COURT: H e h a s two e a rs.
MR. VOGT: Y eah . 1 would think 30 d ay s, ju st
b e c a u s e th a t would e n a b le u s to g e t th at discovery
d o n e , p u t it to g eth er, c o m e b ack in. T h e o th e r
thing th a t w e w ould like to do, Y our Honor, is -a n d this is, a g ain , straig h t out of th e Platt
c a s e . W e w ould like to b e ab le to im m ediately
record a n d re-reco rd th e final ju d g m e n t in an y
jurisdiction in w hich w e n e e d to, d o m e stic a te th e
final ju d g m e n t in o rd e r to p erfect our security
in terests, g e t o u r priority a s lienholders, and
file ju d g m e n t of lien certificates a n d w h a te v e r
sim ilar p ro c e d u re s m ay b e n e c e s s a ry in N ew York,
a n d e lse w h e re , in o rd e r to g e t o u r position
s e c u re d a s a creditor.
THE COURT: S o you'd d o m e stic a te them ; you're
ju st going to en fo rce th e collection. Is th at
w h a t yo u 're telling m e ?
Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. VOGT: C orrect.

MR. TURKEL: Is it p ro p er if 1 c a n a d d two
s e n te n c e s on that, J u d g e ?
G iven th e condition of not dissipating or
alienating or transferring, th e do m esticatio n e n d s
up ju st liening th e a s s e t, anyw ay. S o if th ey a re
going to a g re e not to m ove anything, th e lien
w on't really m atter a s long a s w e a g re e not to try
to fo reclo se on it, s o - if th e re w e re no
property, for in stan ce.
THE COURT: S ort of like a lis p e n d e n s on
so m e real property, but th e re isn't an y real
property o th e r th an -MR. BERRY: Y our Honor, in th e e x c h a n g e , 1
m issed th e first part of w h at Mr. V ogt w a s saying
a b o u t do m esticatin g th e ju d gm ent.
THE COURT: 1 think th a t's w h ere Mr. Turkel
c a m e in.
MR. BERRY: Right. And this is w h e re h e w a s
proposing, 1 think, in 30 d a y s w e'd c o m e b ack to
court. But th en th e re 's so m eth in g 1 lost in th e
transition of w h en h e w a s do m esticatin g th e
ju d g m en t. 1 lost track of w h at it is tim e-w ise.
THE COURT: We'll g e t to that, I'm su re.
MR. BERRY: O kay.
Pages 29 - 32
Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
THE CO U RT: S o , Mr. Vogt, w a s Mr. Turkel

su g g e stin g th a t th e final ju d g m e n t g e t reco rd ed
a n d d o m e stic a te d now or a fte r th e d isco v ery?
MR. VOGT: Now. A nd, in fact, P latt s a y s
th a t th a t sh o u ld h a p p e n . P latt s a y s a t h e a d n o te
5, W ithout a full b o n d th e trial court should not
g ra n t a s ta y a g a in s t a ju d g m e n t h o ld er from
e stab lish in g liens a g a in s t real a n d p e rso n al
property o r th a t p re v e n ts a ju d g m e n t h o ld er from
obtaining priority o v e r s u b s e q u e n t creditors.
THE CO U RT: T h an k you.
MR. VOGT: T h an k you.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE CO U RT: S o, Mr. Berry, w ould you like an

opportunity to d is c u s s this with y our a tto rn e y s?
W hy d o n 't w e ta k e a break , or a re you re ad y to
re sp o n d a t th is point?
MR. BERRY: No. T h an k you, Y our Honor.
THE CO U RT: W ould you like to talk to th e m ?
MR. BERRY: Y es. 1 n e e d to d is c u s s things
with o u r a tto rn e y s. T h e re is a co u p le th in gs th at
1 c a n re sp o n d to a s a b a sic p rem ise, but it m ay
m ak e s e n s e to a d d r e s s th e w hole ball of w ax. 1
tried to w rite a s quickly a s possible.
THE CO U RT: 1w a s too.
MR. BERRY: But 1 m ay h a v e m issed so m e of the
Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
d o all of th e s e affidavits to c o m e h e re to a rg u e
th a t th ey c a n 't afford a bond, th ey should h av e
m o st of this read y . And in th a t re sp e c t, 1 d on't
think trying to ex p ed ite it into a w eek is
u n re a so n a b le , b e c a u s e o sten sib ly th ey h av e g o t it
all alread y . G ive it to us.
And in th a t re sp e c t, th a t portion of this
p ro p o se d o rd e r w e w ould w an t to m ove th e d a te s up
a w eek.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: All right. S o w hy d o n 't w e do

this. If you will s h a re th a t p ro p o se d o rd e r with
Mr. Berry, a n d th e n w e ta k e a break, a n d you'll
let m e know w h en you w an t to c o m e back.
MR. BERRY: Y eah, th at would b e terrific.
1w ould ju st like to s a y o n e thing, b e c a u s e
th e re w a s th e letter th a t w a s s e n t to you
y e ste rd a y a b o u t th e timing of o u r m otion, a n d it's
b e e n re p e a te d se v e ra l tim es alre a d y h ere.
W e could not file a motion to sta y th e
ju d g m e n t until th e ju d g m e n t w a s e n te re d , a n d n o n e
of u s w h en w e left h e re last tim e knew w hen th at
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
w a s going to h ap p e n . W hen th e ju d g m e n t w a s
e n te re d , a s 1 told Mr. Vogt, 1 w a s in th e hospital
with my so n w ho w a s having a p ro c e d u re th a t day.
And while w e -- you know, so m e of this could be
lined up in a d v a n c e , but w e didn't know w h at th e
ju d g m en t w a s going to s a y or th e n a tu re of th e
injunctive relief th a t Y our H onor w a s going to b e
giving. W e w orked to g e t it d o n e. W e tried to
g e t it d o n e a s so o n a s p ossible.
THE COURT: 1 u n d e rsta n d . W e're all going on
limited sle e p .
MR. BERRY: Right. A nd th e re w a s nothing
nefario u s a b o u t it. 1ju st w an ted to m ak e th a t
clear.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TURKEL: T h e only o th e r thing, Ju d g e ,

th at Mr. V ogt ju s t m en tio n ed to m e is D aulerio's
sto ck a n d D en to n 's option a re n 't in h ere. We'll
h av e to ad d th a t in also . W e did th e b e s t w e
could, but it's pretty e x h au stiv e. And if it
p le a s e s th e C ourt, 1 w ould like to give you a copy
s o you can h av e it to look through a n d th en give
Mr. Berry a copy, a n d th en w e c a n talk a n d c o m e
back in a few m inutes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BERRY: Y our Honor, ju st so 1 u n d e rsta n d ,
Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
detail th e re , s o it m ay b e useful if th e y h ad
so m eth in g in writing th a t w e could h a v e s o th a t 1
c a n m ak e s u re to u n d e rsta n d exactly w h at it is
th a t's being s u g g e s te d h ere.
THE COURT: 1 u n d e rsta n d .
MR. TURKEL: J u d g e , w e took -- w e e n g a g e d in
th e e x e rc ise y e s te rd a y of doing a p ro p o sed o rd er
with this proffer in it. 1 m e a n , it w a s so rt of,
from o u r p e rsp e c tiv e , getting th e m otion w hen w e
g o t it an d let's try an d g e t this a s a starting
point.
T h e only thing a s a c a v e a t -- an d 1 will give
a copy of it to both th e C ourt an d Mr. Berry,
b e c a u s e 1 think, ultim ately, if w e g o dow n this
path, it g iv es you a g re a t starting point. It
e m b o d ie s everything Mr. V ogt -- th a t w a s
e sse n tia lly th e list h e w a s reading.
T h e only thing 1 would s a y is a fte r h earing
their a rg u m e n t an d so rt of em b racin g th e idea of
th e s e affidavits com ing in, w e w ould like -- w e
h a v e a tw o-w eek discovery. W e w ould like to
sh o rte n th e d isco v ery s p a n w e p ro p o se d h e re by a
w eek. S o, initially, w e p ro p o se d it like two
w e e k s out, an d w e would like to d o a w e e k out.
1 will ju st s a y this to th e C ourt. If they
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
w en t through th e e x e rc ise -- an d you c a n ju st u se

this a s so rt of a fram e of p re fe re n ce a s you read
it. But if th ey 'v e g o n e through th e e x e rc ise of
assim ilating all this financial inform ation an d to
Page 36
Pages 33 - 36
Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this h earin g h a s to adjourn by 10:45, s o 1 w an t THE COURT: It d o e s n 't h a v e to. I'm ju st

saying if it ca n , th a t would b e helpful.
MR. BERRY: O kay.
THE COURT: 1 w ould like to g o to th at
funeral.
MR. BERRY: Y eah . 1 will d o everything 1
can.
THE COURT: 1 w ould really like to g e t this
c a s e d o n e.
MR. TURKEL: Y es, J u d g e .
MR. BERRY: W e h a v e a lot to c h e w on h ere.
THE C O U R T : And 1 d o n 't w a n t it to b e our
funeral th a t w e 're trying to g o to.
All right. W hy d o n 't w e ta k e a b re a k a n d let
m e know w h en w e 're re a d y to co m e.
MR. BERRY: O kay. W e c a n g o off th e record.
(A r e c e s s w a s tak en a t 9:47 a .m .)
(C ourt called to o rd e r a t 10:22 a .m .)
THE COURT: T h an k you. You-all c a n b e
Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
s e a te d .
22
Mr. Berry?
MR. BERRY: Y es, Y our Honor.
23
THE COURT: W ould you like to re sp o n d to w h at 24
th e plaintiff's re q u e s t is?
25
Page 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BERRY: Y es, 1 would.

Let m e ju st p re m ise with w h a t 1 - - all my
c o m m e n ts h ere. This is a n incredibly co m plicated
pro p o sal. W hile in four p a g e s , in ju s t a little
bit, w h at it a s k s for h e re is incredibly
co m plicated. And I'm trying to co o rd in a te b etw een
th re e different clients h e re to e n s u re th a t 1
h a v e -- ev ery b o d y h a s a n opportunity. And I'm a
First A m en d m en t lawyer; I'm not a b u s in e s s
attorney; I'm not a co llections atto rn ey . And 1
d o n 't - this is a little bey o n d m y ken, an d so -THE C O U R T : It ju st d o e s n 't s e e m to b e - 1
m ean , really, it d o e s n 't s e e m to b e u n re a so n a b le ,
s o it's hard for m e to u n d e rsta n d th a t this w a sn 't
c o n tem p lated . 1 m ean , w h en d isco v ery all along
th e w ay is o b je c te d to. S o th e ch o ice is
basically a bond of a 150 million. Y our p a p e rs
clearly s a y w e c a n 't d o that, but w e w an t to
p le d g e o u r s h a re s , w hich e v ery b o d y c a n s e e a re
extrem ely dwindling. And s o it s e e m s - its
surprising, 1 g u e s s , th a t this w ouldn't h a v e b e e n
co n tem p lated .
MR. BERRY: T h e re is a co u p le is s u e s. W hat 1
g u e s s -- an d 1 know th a t you w ould like to go to a
funeral. W hat 1w ould like to a s k for is an
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
opportunity to co n su lt with th e o th e r folks a n d be

ab le to n eg o tiate so m eth in g o u t with plaintiffs
co u n sel a n d s e e if th e re 's things in h e re th a t w e
can a g re e to. T h e re a r e so m e things in h e re th at
1 know ju st a s a m atter of p ro ced u re with re sp e c t
to th e p led g e is not th e w ay th a t th e sto ck -THE C O U R T : It's not ju st th a t 1 w an t to go
to a n o th e r funeral. T his h a s b e e n going on - 1
m ean , really, th e verdict c a m e in m o n th s a g o . 1
h av e got -- Im a lso in a n o th e r trial th a t th ey 'v e
had to b e put off b e c a u s e I'm h ere, w hich th ey had
w itn e s s e s exp ectin g to g o this m orning. S o 1 know
1 g a v e you-all this tim e fram e, but th a t's ju st
how th e C o u rt's c a le n d a r w orks. I'm sorry.
MR. BERRY: Y our Honor, w e ju s t -- so m e of
this w a s co n tem p lated . T h e disco v ery w e c a n talk
ab o u t. T h e o th e r th in g s in h e re 1ju st got, you
know, 25 m in u tes a g o , a n d it is incredibly
com plicated.
THE C O U R T : But you-all w e re th e o n e s th a t
said you'd p le d g e your s h a re s . Do you ju st think
you can ju st p led g e your s h a r e s a n d not h a v e an y
accountability o r responsibility?
MR. BERRY: T h a t's not w h at w e 're say in g a t
all, Y our Honor.
Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: O kay. Tell m e.

MR. BERRY: A s Mr. Berlin said a t th e last
hearing, a s w e said in th e p a p e rs d iscu ssin g th at
discovery, w e u n d e rsta n d th a t th e re n e e d s to b e
discovery. A gain, w h at w e d o n t think o u g h t to
h a p p e n is th a t th e re is a blank c h e c k for th e
plaintiff to ta k e a n y a n d all disco v ery of a n y of
this stuff, you know, including o u tsid e
jurisdictions w ithout telling an y b o d y w h a t th a t
is.
THE C O U R T : But on th e o th e r h an d , th e re w a s
a n is s u e of a sp ecial m ag istrate last O ctober,
N ovem ber. T h e re w e re is s u e s -- certain is s u e s
going on. T h e d e fe n s e d ecid ed , No, w e w on't h a v e
a n y m ore sp ecial m a g istrate for o u r discovery.
O kay. 1 u n d e rsta n d th a t you h a v e th e right to
w ithdraw your a g re e m e n t to that, but h e re w e a re
now, an d e v e n in yo u r p lead in g s y o u re say in g m ore
discovery. Well, th e re ju st isn't a lot of
hearing tim e on th e C o u rt's c a le n d a r for m e to b e
th e discovery m ag istrate. S o h e re is w h at 1
think - well, you finish w h at you w an t to say .
MR. BERRY: Well, 1 g u e s s with re s p e c t to
discovery, th e re a re rules a b o u t how d iscovery
should p ro ceed with re s p e c t to th e dissipation of
Pages 37 - 40
Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a s s e ts an d co n cern in g th e req u irem en t for a bond,

an d w e w ould a s k for th o s e rules to b e applied.
With re s p e c t to th e third-party discovery, th e re
a re ru les a b o u t how th a t h a s to go.
F or ex am p le, Mr. V ogt w a s talking a b o u t th e
d isco v ery ta k e n in th e UK. T hey se rv e d alm o st 120
d o c u m e n t re q u e s ts on third p arties. W e don't
control - 1 h a v e no id ea w h e th e r w h a t w a s
p ro d u ced w a s p ro p er or not. T h a t's well beyond
my -- it's not th e client.
W h at 1 d o u n d e rsta n d an d w h at 1 know for a
fact is th a t Mr. D enton tra n sfe rre d s h a r e s to his
m inor n ie c e an d n e p h e w in 20 1 0 , y e a rs before this
Hulk H ogan p o st b e c a m e involved. T h e re is not a
single p iece of p a p e r th a t s u g g e s te d h e 's had
anything to do with it sin ce.
With re s p e c t to th e o th e r provisions in h ere,
w e ju st sim ply c a n 't a g r e e with th e p led g e. T h ere
is th in g s a b o u t th e w ay th a t th e sto ck o p e ra te s in
th e C ay m an isla n d s w h e re th is ju s t isn't a correct
d o cu m en t. W e a re h a p p y to p le d g e it, but w e w an t
to m a k e s u re it's d o n e properly. 1 c a n 't sit h ere
to d ay a s a First A m en d m en t law yer a n d go through
th e d etails of that.
With re s p e c t to th e s e p ro p o sa ls, p a ra g ra p h s E
Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a n d G of this w e sim ply c a n n o t a g re e to with

re s p e c t to th e liens a n d th e w ay th a t this
provision is w orded on th e dissipation of any
a s s e ts .
Effectively, w h a t th a t d o e s - th e w ay this
is w o rd ed is s o v a g u e th a t it g iv es th e plaintiff
th e opportunity to run th e co m p an y , fre e z e s all of
its a s s e t s an d , o n e , Mr. D enton an d Mr. D aulerio's
lives during th e c o u rs e of th e stay . W e sim ply
c a n n o t a g r e e to that. T h e re m ay b e so m eth in g w e
c a n a g r e e to, but 1 c a n 't d e c id e th a t in 20
m in u tes on th e fly having ju st s e e n this. This
w a s so m eth in g th a t w e co n te m p la te d , but 1 didn't
g e t this d o c u m e n t until you did a s well, Y our
Honor.
1 d o n 't m e a n to b e talking quickly, but 1 do
know th a t w e n e e d to g e t this reso lv ed . But this
is ju st so m eth in g w e c a n n o t c o n s e n t to.
THE COURT: O kay. And 1 d o n 't know th at
a n y b o d y is ask in g you to c o n s e n t to it. It's
alw ay s nice if th e re is a g re e m e n t. But if th ere
isn't a g re e m e n t, th e n th e C ourt h a s authority to
ju st o rd e r it, an d th e n we'll s e e w h a t fallout
h a p p e n s . And you-all certainly know th e w ay to my
door.
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
O kay. Anything e ls e th at you w an t -MR. BERRY: T h e o th e r point th a t 1 would m ak e

is ju st u n d e r th e law, th e law in th e S e c o n d DCA
is th e Platt c a s e th a t h a s b e e n cited to you. And
u n d e r that, th e law is c le a r - th e DCA couldn't
h av e b e e n m ore cle a r -- th a t said th e trial court
can g ra n t th e sta y on conditions th a t vary from
th o s e required for an au to m atic sta y u n d e r th e
rules. And it held th a t it could sta y th e
ju d g m en t on conditions th a t don't g u a ra n te e full
p ay m en t of th e judgm ent.
It d o e s talk a b o u t liens an d taking th a t into
con sid eratio n . But w h at it didnt allow w a s -w h at it didn't s a y should h a p p e n is effectively
w h at this o rd e r d o e s, w hich is to give th e
prevailing party th e opportunity to control th e
b u s in e s s an d control th e lives while th e sta y w a s
in effect, w hich is th e effect of w h at p a ra g ra p h s
E a n d G do h ere.
THE COURT: Well, w h at did you h a v e in mind
w hen you said that, on b eh alf of your client, th at
you w e re willing to p led g e your s h a r e s th a t 1
g u e s s 1 don't -MR. BERRY: W e a re willing to p le d g e our
s h a re s .
Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: And w h at d o e s th a t co n tem p late,

th en , if it d o e s n 't co n te m p la te w h a t this p ro p o sed
o rd e r is going to ?
MR. BERRY: W h at w e w ould co n te m p la te is -again, th e specific v erb iag e in h ere, 1 don't
think, is co rrect a s a m atte r of law. W hat w e had
co n tem p lated w a s putting to g e th e r tw o d o c u m e n ts,
o n e for Mr. D enton, o n e for Mr. D aulerio, th a t
p ledged th e s h a r e s -- our p re fe re n ce w ould b e to
th e C ourt to hold in e sc ro w - should th e ju d g m en t
ultim ately b e e n te re d following th e a p p e a ls, th at
would th en b e te n d e re d to Mr. Bollea should h e
hold onto th e ju d g m en t you en te re d .
THE C O U R T : But you if you don't h av e
conditions th at go to th a t p led g e, w h at
p rev en ts -- w h at a s s u r a n c e s a re th e re , o th e r th an
a p led g e, w hich by itself is so rt of m e an in g less,
w h at a s s u r a n c e s a re th e re th a t th e p ledged
a m o u n t --1 m ean , e v en in your co m m e n ts earlier
you said a b o u t th e give an d tak e. T he give and
tak e, th e giving of loans, th e taking of th e
a s s e ts , th a t's b e e n going on now at le a st for th e
last year.
S o o th e r th an th e w o rd s "pledge" -- an d th e
C ourt d o e sn 't w an t to hold on to a n y m ore th an th e
Pages 41- 44
Page 45
1
2
3
C ourt h a s a lre a d y b e e n holding on to. 1 don't

know w h at "pledge" m e a n s u n le ss you put w ords to
it th a t h a v e en fo rcem en t.
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
MR. BERRY: Right. W e w a n t a legally binding

d o c u m e n t th a t s a y s th a t th e s e s h a r e s a re for
Mr. B ollea's benefit. H e c a n ta k e th o s e s h a r e s if
h e ultim ately h olds on to this ju d g m en t, but w e
should h a v e th e opportunity to run th e a p p ellate
g a u n tle t first. And th a t's a legally e n fo rc e ab le
d o cu m en t.
T h ey h a v e a sk e d , 1 think - although, again,
s o m e of th e n u a n c e s of this e s c a p e s m e -- th ey
h a v e a s k e d for th a t p le d g e to b e m a d e directly to
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
him. O ur p re fe re n c e w ould b e to do it with th e

C ourt like you would with a bond. If it h a s to b e
his law yers for th e benefit of him --I'll h a v e to
s p e a k to co rp o ra te c o u n se l - but th a t m ay well
w o rk o u t.
THE COURT: 1 s e e w h at y o u 're saying.
MR. BERRY: But th e tech n ical w ay th a t this
is s e t up 1 know is incorrect, but th a t's w h at w e
w ould b e giving him.
A s far a s th e conditions, th e re w ould be
d isco v ery ju st a s th e re w ould b e in an y c a s e to
e n s u re th a t th e re is not dissip atio n of a s s e ts by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Mr. D enton an d Mr. D aulerio. T h a t's w h a t w e're th a t's w h a t w e 're co ntem plating.
W h at th e y h a v e d o n e is sa id w e 're going to
ta k e th e ju d g m en t, go a h e a d a n d put liens on
everything, th a t w e th e n control e v e ry e x p en d itu re
of th e c o m p a n y a n d th e s e tw o p e o p le a n d d eterm in e
w h e th e r it's in th e o rdinary c o u rs e of b u sin e ss.
It d o e s n t e v e n s a y ordinary c o u rs e -- it d o e sn 't
e v e n s a y u n d e r th e ordinary c o u rs e of p e rso n al
life.
1 m e a n , a re th e y going to s ta rt dictating,
you know, w h en Mr. D enton w e n t to M cD onald's, h e
sh o u ld h a v e g o n e to B urger King b e c a u s e th e y w ere
running a sp e c ia l? You know, th e c o m p a n y is
paying X em p lo y e e this; th e y 're dissipating th e
a s s e t s b e c a u s e th e y sh o u ld b e paying th em 20 cents
a dollar, you know, an h o u r le ss. T h a t kind of
controls w h a t I'm c o n c e rn e d ab o u t.
THE CO U RT: O kay. T h an k you, Mr. Berry.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. T urkel?
MR. TURKEL: Y es, J u d g e .
J u d g e , w e tried th e c a s e b a c k in M arch.
T h e re h a s b e e n su b sta n tia l tim e sin c e o u r last
hearin g , you know. 1 d o n 't -- w h e th e r th e y n e e d e d
to s e e th e final ju d g m e n t to su b m it this financial
Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
affidavit inform ation y e ste rd a y is so m eth in g 1

d o n 't know th a t 1 can s p e a k to.
But 1 will s a y this: T hey h av e b e e n
contending o n e w ay o r a n o th e r th a t th e y w eren 't
going to h a v e m o n ey to bond this offer, sufficient
m oney. And th e re is nothing com plicated a b o u t th e
pledge, Ju d g e . Indeed, th e form of a civil
s u p e r s e d e a s bond u n d er th e Florida R u les of Civil
P ro ced u re, th e a p p ro v ed form s th e S u p re m e C ourt
h a s ap p ro v ed , h a s th e plaintiff pledging -- th e
d e fe n d a n t pledging to th e plaintiff a s principal
th e su m of X, w hich th ey a re to bond off.
In p a ra g ra p h B on p a g e 2 of th e p ro p o sed
order, w e a re echoing w h at th ey h av e said. It's
u n e n c u m b e re d an d th a t th ey 're going to p led g e it.
Now, how th a t norm ally w orks, how 1 h a v e d o n e it
in th e p a s t is th ey e n d o rs e it in blank, an d w e
hold it until su c h tim e a s th e security is no
longer n e e d e d .
MR. BERRY: Your Honor, 1 apo lo g ize for
interrupting. O n e of th e is s u e s -- again, this is
well beyond my know ledge. But in th e C ay m an
Islan d s w h e re GMGI is incorporated, th e re a re not
s h a r e s of certificates. T h e s e a re th e kind of
n u a n c e s th at I'm talking a b o u t h ere.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. TURKEL: J u d g e , 1 d o n 't --1 d o n 't know

how to h an d le this c o n s ta n t refrain th a t Mr. Berry
is not p re p a re d to d eal with th e s e is s u e s b e c a u s e
h e 's a First A m en d m en t law yer. W e all knew w h at
th e is s u e s w e re going to b e to d ay . W e knew th a t
th ey w e re n 't going to b e a b o u t th e First
A m endm ent.
T h e is s u e s w e re going to b e a b o u t a bond
req u irem en t or, a s th e y proffered, a p led g e of
stock, w hich th e feeling I'm getting a t this point
is by calling th eir bluff a n d saying we'll ta k e
it, th ey 're looking for w a y s a t this point not to
p led g e th e stock.
T h at being said , J u d g e , if you look a t Platt
in th e S e c o n d District, 1ju s t w an t to re a d from
th e opinion in th e last p a ra g ra p h , in w hich th e
court said it's not n e c e s s a ry for this court to
d ete rm in e a t this tim e w h a t p ro c e d u re s a trial
court should u s e to d eterm in e a d e q u a te conditions
for a sta y . But it w ould b e re a s o n a b le to require
th e ju d g m e n t d e b to r to su b m it to a deposition in
aid of execu tio n a n d a production of financial
erro rs befo re th e entry of su c h a stay. It would
also se e m p ru d en t to perm it th e ju d g m en t creditor
to u p d a te th e inform ation ev ery few m o n th s by
Page 46
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
Page 48
Pages 45 - 48
Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
additional d isco v ery during th e p e n d e n c y of th e

a p p e a l.
S o th e y subm it 24 ho u rs, or le s s th a n 24
hou rs, b efo re h earin g their e v id e n c e in th e form
of affidavits. And w e im p o sed , in this p ro p o sed
ord er, a condition. And th a t condition is th a t w e
b e a b le to ta k e ex p ed ited d isco v ery to te s t th o s e
affidavits s o th a t th e C ourt c a n d e te rm in e in
a c c o rd a n c e with P latt w h e th e r th o s e co nditions a re
re a s o n a b le o r not. W e're doing exactly w h at th e
S e c o n d h a s told u s to do, o r a t le a s t w h a t th e
S e c o n d h a s said would b e re a so n a b le .
Call m e a cynic, Y our Honor, but 1 d o n 't
a c c e p t self-serving affidavits which 1 h a v e n 't had
a c h a n c e to te st. And s o w h en you cu t th e w h e a t
from th e chaff, all w e h a v e p ro p o se d h e re is w h at
th ey offered, w hich w a s a p le d g e of th e sto ck a s a
tem p o rary g a p fill w hile th e C ourt d e te rm in es, A,
w h e th e r th e financial re p re s e n ta tio n s a re credible
e n o u g h for you not to im p o se upon an d , B, to allow
u s to actually te s t th o s e a s w e're afforded th e
right u n d e r Platt.
This is a te m p o ra ry stay , J u d g e an d a g ap
fill until w e g e t th e re , b e c a u s e given le s s th an
2 4 h o u rs to te s t th eir e v id e n c e -- which they're
Page 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 52
Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
required to su b m it an d it's their b u rd en to prove,

w e d o n 't h a v e e n o u g h tim e to d e te rm in e w h e th e r
w h a t th e y 're say in g is tru e. S o w e w a n t th e
stock.
THE COURT: O kay.
MR. TURKEL: T h a t's all 1 really h a v e , u n le ss
you h a v e an y q u e stio n s, Y our Honor.
THE COURT: T h an k you.
Mr. B erry?
MR. BERRY: Y our H onor, ju s t a co u p le m ore
points.
W e c a n p le d g e th e sto ck . T h e d etails of how
this is d o n e in -- w e 're ju s t getting th e re . By
5:00 p.m . J u n e 14th, no is s u e for u s. W e c a n do
it, but 1 w ould like to m a k e s u re th a t w e d o it in
a w ay th a t is p ro p e r in a c c o rd a n c e with th e law a s
to w h e re th e sto c k is actually held. T h a t is my
sim ple point. T h e tim e fram e, th is is not
so m eth in g th a t w e 're c o n c e rn e d ab o u t.
THE C O U R T : But p robably h a d s o m e of th at
d isco v ery ta k e n p la c e a t le a s t e v e n during th e
punitive p h a s e of d iscovery, th e n p e rh a p s
ev e ry b o d y w ould h a v e h a d th a t a n s w e r by now, so
h e re -MR. BERRY: No. T h e d isco v ery is a s e p a ra te
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
is s u e th a n how this sto ck p led g e h a p p e n s.

T h e o th e r thing -- an d Mr. Turkel did not
s p e a k to this -- but this is s u e with th e lien an d
this provision an d th e w ay it's drafted on th e
dissipation of a s s e ts an d th a t w e a re required to
m e e t legal an d b u s in e s s e x p e n s e s an d th e c o st of
legal re p re se n ta tio n is so v a g u e th a t it, again,
p u ts th e plaintiff into control of th e b u sin e ss
an d th e s e two g e n tle m e n 's lives. W e don't
d isa g re e th a t th e re is -- u n d er Platt it's
re a s o n a b le to h a v e discovery a b o u t th e dissipation
of th e a s s e ts . T h a t's not th e issu e . It's th e s e
o th e r provisions th a t Mr. Turkel h a s sp o k e n to.
THE COURT: O kay. All right.
MR. TURKEL: 1ju s t w an t to re a d o n e cite
into th e record, J u d g e , so m eth in g -- I'm sorry,
but 1ju st think it's im portant vis--vis th e
tim eliness, 152 S o .3 d 657, C h a rte r S c h o o ls vs.
Jo h n D oe, w hich is th e 2014, Third DCA c a s e .
T h e s e a re issu e s, J u d g e , th a t w ere s u p p o s e d
to b e h an d led by them a t th e tim e post-trial
m otions w e re d en ied . O r a s s ta te d by th e C ourt,
A s o n e s o u rc e a d v ise s, a party w ho in ten d s to sta y
a ju d g m e n t by posting a bond should a rra n g e to
h a v e a bond in p lace a t th e tim e th e trial co u rts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ru les on th e m otions.
But my co n cern is this, Ju d g e : W hat a re w e
going to d o now, s e t this off ag ain THE COURT: No.
MR. TURKEL: -- a n d go through this a g a in ?
THE COURT: T h an k you.
S o th e C ourt is going to g ra n t th e
d e fe n d a n t's m otion to sta y ex ecu tio n of th e
ju d g m e n t pending a p p e a l with th e conditions th at
h av e b e e n outlined. T h e C ourt will a c c e p t th e
pledging of th e -- of GM GI's sto ck s h a r e s u n d er
th e s a m e conditions th a t a re in this p ro p o sed
order. And an additional part, th o u g h , is to
include Mr. D aulerio, his s h a re s , a s well
Mr. D en to n 's s h a re s . T h e C ourt finds this to b e a
re a s o n a b le acco m o d atio n for th e sta y of th e
conditions o f th e sta y a t this point in tim e s o
d isco v ery c a n b e had.
1 a p p re c ia te th e fact, Mr. Berry, th a t you
m ay n e e d so m e additional inform ation. 1 think
this p ro p o se d o rd e r a t le a st giv es d e a d lin e s to
th o se . If th e re is so m e issu e along th e w ay,
p e rh a p s you can d is c u s s th o s e with plaintiffs
co u n sel a n d s e e if th o s e is s u e s can b e w orked out.
If th ey c a n 't b e w orked out, th en we'll ju st s e e
Pages 49 - 52
Page 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
w h a t kind of m otions a re filed, a n d th e n we'll go

from th e re .
But th e tim e to m ove on with this c a s e is
h ere. It's p a st. It's a lre a d y p ast. And 1
a p p re c ia te th e fact - an d 1 d o n 't like putting
you into a bind. 1find you to b e a very
ex cellen t lawyer, but w e n e e d to m ove on.
S o let m e p ro p o se s o m e tim es s o th a t w e can
m ay b e modify th e Florida specifically retaining
jurisdiction to modify this order. Let m e p ro p o se
s o m e tim e s u n d e r ev e ry b o d y 's sc h e d u le -- so you
c a n g e t y our c a le n d a rs o u t - to p e rh a p s work out
w h a te v e r m odifications w e n e e d to if you-all c an 't
modify it yourself.
W ould July 6th in th e m orning w ork for
Page 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
anybody, or is th a t too s o o n ?
16
MR. TURKEL: I'm available. It's not too
17
so o n for us, J u d g e .
18
THE COURT: And, Mr. Vogt, you c a n se n d m e a 19
rev ised o rd e r add in g Mr. D aulerio in th e re , an d
20
th en 1 will e x e c u te th a t order.
21
MR. VOGT: Y es, Y our Honor.
22
THE COURT: July 6 th ?
23
MR. BERRY: Y es, Y our Honor, 1 c a n be
24
av ailab le or I'm s u re w e can -25
Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE COURT: O kay. S o July 6th, nine o'clock,

an d th a t will ju st b e in th e m orning.
MR. BERRY: Y our Honor, is th e id ea th a t this
sta y is in effect now until th e o rd e r is sig n e d ?
THE C O U R T : I'm signing th e o rd e r today.
MR. BERRY: O kay. Well, th e n w h at I'd like
to do, Y our Honor, is re q u e s t a tem p o rary sta y to
allow u s to s e e k review of th a t o rd e r from th e
DCA. W e would a s k for a te m p o ra ry s ta y for a w eek
s o th a t w e c a n file a m otion with th e DCA by
M onday m orning -- by M onday, an d provide plaintiff
tim e to re sp o n d . W e will a s k for this o rd e r to be
sta y e d from - for s e v e n d a y s from th e entry of
it.
THE COURT: T h at will b e d en ied .
MR. BERRY: C an w e a s k for until 5:00 p.m . on
M onday?
THE COURT: No. D enied.
MR. BERRY: To th e e n d of th e d a y to d a y ?
THE COURT: No.
MR. BERRY: Tw o h o u rs?
THE COURT: 1 m e a n , really, w e 're w ay beyond
all that. And in y our p le a d in g s y ou've offered to
p le d g e y our s h a re s , s o w e 're th e re .
MR. BERRY: Y our H onor, ag ain , th e co n cern is
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
not th e pledging of s h a re s ; it's th e s e conditions.

THE COURT: 1 u n d e rsta n d .
MR. BERRY: 1ju st a s k on b ehalf of th e DCA
to provide th em th e co u rtesy th at w e a re going to
b e m oving for a sta y for them an d would like tim e
for th e ju d g e s th e re to b e ab le to rule on a
re q u e st for a stay.
THE COURT: O kay. D enied. 1 h av e d en ied th e
req u est.
MR. BERRY: T hank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: S o 1 will g e t th e order, th e
p ro p o sed order, adding Mr. D aulerio to th e s a m e
is s u e s a s Mr. D enton, an d w e're going from th ere.
And th en this July 6th, nine o'clock, th at
will b e for th e m orning, a half day, so if w e n eed
to reso lv e an y of th e s e is s u e s th a t you and
Mr. Turkel c a n 't s e e m to reso lv e on your own.
Anything e ls e ?
O h, let m e give you a ruling, p le a se , on th e
M ayer Brown report. W a s th e re so m eth in g e ls e on
th e motion to sta y th a t w e n e e d to reso lv e?
MR. TURKEL: No, Ju d g e . W e a d d e d th e word
"tem porary" in th e p ream b le, ju st to m ak e th at
clear. W hen w e subm it th e pro p o sal a n d certain
d e v e lo p m e n ts from th e hearing, w e're going to ad d
Page 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so m e stylistic stuff, but th a t w a s it. 1 didn't

w an t th e C ourt to not know w h at w e w e re going to
do. T hank you.
THE C O U R T : S o th e C ourt a t th e last hearing,
th e re w a s an issu e regarding th e M ayer Brown
report. T h e C ourt h a s had an opportunity for an
in -cam era review of th e M ayer Brown eco n o m ic
an aly sis of royalty p a y m e n ts b etw een G aw ker M edia
LLC, an d Blogwire H ungary, KFT, th a t is d ated
D e c e m b e r 12th, 2011. T h e C ourt finds th a t while
th e re a re certain facts th a t a re co n tain ed in
th e -- esp ecially in th e beginning of th e report
th at th e review ers u se d in their an aly sis, th o se
fa c ts would b e c o n sid e re d to b e tra d e s e c re ts .
1 reco gnize, esp ecially in preparing for
today, so m e of th o s e facts th at m ay b e tra d e
s e c re ts m ay alread y b e public record, but 1 don't
h av e th e ability to go an d figure out w h at's
public record an d w h a t's not public record. But
th e C ourt would find them to b e tra d e s e c re ts .
But, generally, th e report overall would be
privileged attorney-client information.
Mr. Safier, if you would p re p a re th e o rd e r to
that, an d I'm returning this original -- or it's
not a n original, but th e M ayer Brown report th a t 1
Pages 53 - 56
Page 59
Page 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
review ed, an d I'll give it right b ack to you.

MR. SAFIER: T h an k you v ery m uch, Y our H onor
THE CO U RT: T h an k you.
A s a p art of that, if you would p le a s e , hold
on to th at. You know w hat, H ere. If you'd hand
it b a c k to m e, let m e put m y initials on e a c h p a g e
s o th a t it's c le a r a s to w h a t 1 h a v e review ed.
And if you would p le a s e hold o n to th is until an y
o th e r review of this m ay c o m e dow n a s well
MR. SAFIER: 1 will d o so , Y our Honor.
THE C O U R T : -- ju st s o it's c le a r w h a t 1 h av e
review ed.
Any q u e stio n s for an y b o d y ?
MR. TURKEL: N one from th e plaintiff. Ju d g e .
THE CO U RT: G reat. T h an k you.
A nything e ls e th a t 1 n e e d to rule o n ?
MR. V O G T : 1 think ju s t th e tw o m otions to
d e te rm in e confidentiality.
THE CO U RT: A nybody w a n t to a rg u e th o s e ? It
s e e m s th at, really, th e confidentiality a s p e c t of
it is from th e d e fe n d a n ts.
W ho is argu in g th a t for th e d e fe n d a n ts ?
MR. BERRY: 1 c a n ta k e it, Y our Honor.
THE C O U R T : It s e e m s like th e d e fe n s e w an ts
th a t to rem ain confidential, not th e plaintiffs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BERRY: T h e re w a s confidential

inform ation in th e re . With re s p e c t to th e M ayer
Brown tra n sfe r of pricing stu d y m otion, th e only
thing th a t 1 think w e w ould a s k to b e confidential
is w h at you review ed in c a m e ra , which is now
confidential re g a rd le ss.
With re s p e c t to th e o th e r m otion -THE C O U R T : It w a s n e v e r filed
electronically, s o 1 d o n 't think it's an issu e.
MR. BERRY: C orrect. S o I'm not s u re w h at
e ls e -THE COURT: T h e m otion itself w ould not b e
d e te rm in e d to b e confidential.
MR. BERRY: C orrect. W e d o n 't o b ject to
that.
With re s p e c t to th e o th e r m otion, w e h av e no
problem with th e inform ation becom ing public with
o n e ex cep tio n , th e a tta c h e d d o c u m e n ts c o n n ected
with w h a t th e y h a d receiv ed from th e folks in th e
UK. And its m y u n d e rsta n d in g th a t th e re w a s
re p re s e n ta tio n s m a d e in th e UK co u rt th a t th o se
individuals could d e s ig n a te th o s e d o c u m e n ts a s
confidential, you know. 1 d o n 't re p re s e n t them ,
s o 1 d o n 't know w h a t th e situation is, but 1 think
th a t th o s e d o c u m e n ts sh o u ld co n tin u e to be
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
confidential.
THE C O U R T : S o it's ju st th e a tta c h m e n ts?
MR. BERRY: 1 d o n 't h av e th e motion in front
of m e, but th e re is a s e rie s of d o c u m e n ts th at
th ey w e re provided in re s p o n s e to a UK su b p o e n a .
THE COURT: S in ce 1 n e e d to b e very specific,
could you m ay b e g e t th e motion a n d look a t th e
a tta c h m e n ts ~
MR. VOGT: 1 g o t it now, Y our Honor.
THE COURT: - an d th en w e can m ak e s u re -m ay b e Mr. V ogt could s h a re his co p y with you.
MR. VOGT: 1 g u e s s , Y our Honor, if you would
like -- u n le ss th e y o b ject to th o s e th in g s being
confidential --1 think w e c a n su b m it a form o rd e r
on that.
THE COURT: With specificity.
MR. VOGT: Y es. W e'll identify e a c h of th e
specific exhibits, Y ou're Honor.
MR. BERRY: T h e only d o c u m e n ts th a t w e a re
c o n c e rn e d ab o u t, a s 1 said , a r e th e th in g s th at
w e re p ro d u ced by th e UK, th e p eo p le in th e UK
u n d e r th e confidentiality a g re e m e n ts , a n d a n y
inform ation from th o s e d o c u m e n ts th a t wind up in
th e m otion. And th en if th ey d o n 't object, th en
w e c a n a g re e to that.
Page 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. VOGT: We'll do that, Y our Honor.

THE COURT: T hank you.
A nything e ls e for th e hearing to d ay ?
MR. TURKEL: Nothing from th e plaintiff, Your
Honor.
MR. SAFIER: C an 1 h av e o n e m om ent, Your
H onor?
MR. BERRY: C an w e confer with the
plaintiffs?
THE COURT: Y es.
(A p a u s e w a s had in th e p ro ceed in g s.)
THE COURT: Is th e re anything e ls e ?
MR. SAFIER: W e're good.
MR. BERRY: Y our Honor, w e h av e a p re p a re d
o rd e r on th e denial of th e tem p o rary - th e
re q u e s t for a tem p o rary sta y su b je c t to a p p ellate
review.
THE COURT: This is for Mr. Safier. You
alre a d y h av e an o rd e r p re p a re d on th a t?
MR. BERRY: Y es, w e do.
THE COURT: Is it handw ritten?
MR. BERRY: No, Y our Honor. 1 m ean , it ju st
s a y s -THE COURT: How c a n 1 give you a n o rd e r on
th a t w h en 1 h a v e n 't e n te re d th e o th e r o rd e r y et?
Pages 57 - 60
P a g e 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BERRY: E xcellent q u estio n .

THE COURT: Y eah , 1 d o n 't think - b e c a u s e
I'm granting y our m otion u n d e r th e conditions.
MR. SAFIER: Right. C ould w e draft it
quickly?
MR. BERRY: Y eah . C an w e g e t -THE COURT: Draft w h a te v e r you w ant. I'm
getting re a d y to g o into a n o th e r trial. It's very
im portant to th o s e p eo p le too.
MR. SAFIER: U n d ersto o d , Y our Honor.
THE C O U R T : 1 will b e in trial all afternoon.
MR. SAFIER: S o Mr. V ogt will b e subm itting a
rev ised versio n of th e o rd e r th a t you 're planning
to en ter. W e will s u b m it-THE COURT: Y ou're going to ad d Mr. D aulerio?
MR. SAFIER: Y es. And w e will subm it an
o rd e r th a t d e n ie s o u r m otion for a tem p o rary sta y
s o w e c a n g e t -THE COURT: O kay.
MR. SAFIER: T h an k you.
THE C O U R T : T h an k you very m uch.
(H earing co n clu d ed a t 10:55 a.m .)
P age 62
1
R E P O R T E R 'S C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3
S T A T E O F F L O R ID A
4
C O U N T Y O F H IL L S B O R O U G H
5
6
1, A a r o n T . P e r k in s , R e g is t e r e d P r o f e s s io n a l
7
R e p o r t e r , c e r tify t h a t 1 w a s a u t h o r iz e d to a n d d id
s t e n o g r a p h ic a lly r e p o r t t h e a b o v e h e a r in g a n d t h a t
t h e tr a n s c r ip t is a tr u e a n d c o m p le t e r e c o r d o f m y
s t e n o g r a p h ic n o te s .
9
10
11
1 f u r t h e r c e r tify t h a t 1 a m n o t a r e la tiv e ,
e m p lo y e e , a t t o r n e y , o r c o u n s e l o f a n y o f th e
12
p a r t ie s , n o r a m 1 a r e la tiv e o r e m p lo y e e o f a n y o f
t h e p a r tie s ' a t t o r n e y o r c o u n s e l c o n n e c t e d w ith
13
t h e a c tio n , n o r a m 1 f in a n c ia lly in t e r e s te d in th e
a c tio n .
14
15
16
D a t e d th is 1 0 t h d a y o f J u n e , 2 0 1 6 .
17
18
19
20
21
22
A a r o n T . P e r k in s , R P R
23
24
25
[6/10/2016] Bollea Hearing - 6-10-16
P a g e s 61 - 62

08-05-16 Hogan Motion For Sanctions With Exhibits OCR

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

08-05-16 Hogan Motion For Sanctions With Exhibits OCR

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Filing # 44907857 E-Filed 08/05/2016 05:34:34 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

BOLLEAS RENEWED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Specifically, Mr. Daulerio

an asset. (6/4/2015 Response # 3; attached as Exhibit B) In fact, Mr. Daulerio affirmatively

Belle Glade Chevrolet-

A 44.7% ownership interest in RGFree, Inc. (RGFree), a

5,900 shares in Gawker Media Group, Inc.

Checking and savings accounts holding approximately $13,000.

I do not own a home, a car, or any other material assets.

4 The June 10, 2016 Hearing Transcript is attached as Exhibit D.

Then, they intentionally misled this Court and Mr. Bollea by

Mr. Daulerios pledge of GMGI stock was

[B]asic, fundamental dishonesty... is a serious flaw, which cannot be tolerated because

Counsel for Gawker Defendants

Steven L. Brannock, Esquire

Seth D. Berlin, Esquire

Co-Counselfor Gawker Defendants

Stuart C. Markman, Esquire

/s/ Kenneth G. Turkel

Filing # 44907857 E-Filed 08/05/2016 05:34:34 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

GAWKER MEDIA, LLC,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO VACATE;

d e clara tio n s filed in su p p o rt, co n sid ered law cited by th e p a rtie s, a n d is

R ule 9 .3 1 0 , Fla. R. A pp. P., a n d S ection 4 5 .0 4 5 , Fla. Stat., afford

th is C o u rt s u b s ta n tia l d iscretio n to g ra n t, m odify or deny a sta y of execution,

P rotection of th e ju d g m e n t holder, a n d a s s u rin g p a y m e n t in th e

event th e ju d g m e n t is affirm ed on ap p eal, a re of p a ra m o u n t im p o rtan ce.

A tria l c o u rt sh o u ld n o t g ra n t a sta y th a t p reju d ices a ju d g m e n t

h o ld e rs realistic o p p o rtu n ities to collect u p o n th e ju d g m e n t or th a t p rev e n ts a

co n clu sio n of th e a p p eal sh o u ld be u p o n th e ju d g m e n t debtor. Id. A trial c o u rt

satisfy th e ju d g m e n t in w hole or p a rt, th e tria l c o u rt w ould prejudice th e

S tays p e n d in g review a re e q u itab le in n a tu re a n d d eterm in ed

b a se d on a b a la n ce of equities betw een th e p a rtie s. H ollingsw orth v. Perry, 558

By oral ru lin g on J u n e 10, 2016, th is C o u rt initially ex ten d ed

eq u itab le relief to M essrs. D enton a n d D aulerio, a t th e ir own b e h e st a n d on

However, Mr. D enton a n d Mr. D au lerio s pledge of G aw ker M edia

G roup, Inc. sto c k a s altern ativ e se cu rity to sta y execution is no longer

Mr. D enton a n d Mr. D aulerio m isled th is C o u rt in co n n ectio n w ith

th e ir pledge of G aw ker M edia G roup, Inc. sto c k by concealing m ateria l

In th e ir m otion for sta y of execution a n d a t th e J u n e 10, 2016,

Mr. D en ton a n d Mr. D aulerio so u g h t to qualify th is value, it w as n o n e th e le ss

At th e tim e of th e J u n e 10, 2016, hearin g , Mr. D en to n a n d

T his C o u rt e x p ressed its co n cern a t th e J u n e 10, 2016, h earin g

over th e dw indling v alue of D e n to n s sh a re s , p a rtic u la rly given D e fe n d a n ts

in ad v an ce of th e J u n e 10, 2016, hearin g . In resp o n se , Mr. D enton,

Given w h a t tra n s p ire d before, d u rin g a n d after th e J u n e 10, 2016,

In th e ir opposition, Mr. D enton a n d Mr. D aulerio have n o t offered

a n y o th e r se cu rity or conditions. R ath er, th e y s ta n d by th e ir pledge of stock

Given th e se events, a n d th e c u rre n t c irc u m sta n c e s p re se n te d to

P lain tiffs E m ergency M otion to V acate a n d /o r Modify J u n e 10,

2 0 1 6 , O ral R uling on M otion for S tay of E xecution Pending A ppeal, for

R eh earin g a n d R econsideration, for S a n c tio n s a n d /o r O rder to Show C ause,

T his C o u rts J u n e 10, 2 0 1 6 , oral ru lin g g ran tin g Mr. D en to n a n d

Mr. D au lerio s M otion for S tay of E xecution P ending A ppeal conditioned u p o n a

Mr. D e n to n s a n d Mr. D au lerio s M otion to S tay E xecution Pending

A ppeal h e a rd on J u n e 10, 2 0 1 6 , is DENIED. Mr. Bollea m ay im m ediately

Mr. D e n to n s a n d Mr. D au lerio s M otion for S tay to S eek A ppellate

review filed J u ly 27, 2016, is DENIED.

D efendant, G aw ker M edia, LLC, c a n n o t be a n d is n o t in clu d ed in

a n y ru lin g h erein , a n d is otherw ise u n affected by th is O rder, b e c a u se of its