Kurian v. SNAPS Holding Company

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 1, 2024
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01757
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 E. BRENT BRYSON, LTD. E. BRENT BRYSON, ESQ. 2 Nevada Bar No. 004933 375 E. Warm Springs Road, Ste. 104 3 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 4 (702) 364-1234 Telephone (702) 364-1442 Facsimile 5 Ebbesqltd@yahoo.com

6 Attorney for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, Thomas K. Kurian 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 THOMAS K. KURIAN, individually, Case No.: 2:19-cv-01757-GMN-EJY

11 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 12 vs.

13 AMENDED JOINT PRETRIAL SNAPS HOLDING COMPANY, a North 14 Dakota Domestic Corporation, ORDER

15 Defendants/Counterclaimant. 16 17 COMES NOW Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, THOMAS K. KURIAN (hereinafter 18 “KURIAN”), by and through his counsel, E. Brent Bryson, Esq. of the law offices of E. Brent 19 Bryson, Ltd., and Defendant/Counterclaimant SNAPS HOLDING COMPANY (hereinafter 20 “SNAPS”), by and through its counsel, Richard G. Campbell, Jr., Esq., of the law offices of 21 Kaemper Crowell, and John R. Neve, Esq. of the law offices of Quantum Lex, PA, Minnesota 22 Bar No. 278300 (Motion Pro Hac Vice to be filed), and pursuant to Local Rule 16-4 and this 23 24 Court’s Order (ECF No. 127), and submits their revised Joint Pretrial Order as follows: 25 After pretrial proceedings in this case, 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED: 2 I. THIS IS AN ACTION FOR: 3 A. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS: 4 On May 19, 2014, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant KURIAN (“Kurian”) and 5 Defendant/Counterclaimant SNAPS HOLDING COMPANY (“SNAPS”) executed a Spectrum 6 Manager Lease Agreement wherein SNAPS leased from KURIAN the right to use certain 7 frequencies contained within call sign WQCP809 (809) issued to Kurian from the FCC. As part 8 9 of the duties of the lessee, SNAPS was to build out the portion of the frequencies leased to 10 SNAPS and use only equipment approved by the FCC but SNAPS failed to do so. SNAPS 11 additionally failed to pay KURIAN as agreed pursuant to the parties’ lease. 12 Plaintiff (“Kurian”) filed his complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court advancing 13 causes of action sounding in contract law. Defendant (SNAPS) removed the matter pursuant to 14 Diversity Jurisdiction to Federal Court. All of Kurian’s causes of action are based on Nevada 15 16 State law. After removing the matter to Federal Court, SNAPS filed its answer and counterclaim. 17 Plaintiff, therefore, alleged Breach of Contract, Fraud/Misrepresentation, Interference 18 with Prospective Economic Gain, Breach of the Covenant of Goof Faith and Fair Dealing – 19 Contractual, Declaratory Relief, and Injunctive Relief. 20 This Court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of 21 contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Additionally, the 22 Court granted partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s first cause of action for declaratory relief 23 24 finding that there is a valid contract between the parties. See ECF No. 55. 25 The Court in its Order (ECF No. 59) left counterclaims for Unjust Enrichment, 26 Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Inducement, Breach of 27 the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and Tortious Interference with Prospective 28 1 Economic Advantage unresolved. 2 B. DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS: 3 Objection: Plaintiff Kurian objects to Defendant’s contentions to the extent Defendants 4 are attempting to relitigate this Court’s prior ruling in favor of Plaintiff on summary judgment. 5 Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objection: It is well-settled that district courts have 6 the authority to reconsider and revise interlocutory orders, such as orders granting motions for 7 8 partial summary judgment. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir.1996) (“[T]he 9 interlocutory orders and rulings made pre-trial by a district judge are subject to modification by 10 the district judge at any time prior to final judgment.”); Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of 11 Corrections, 869 F.2d 461, 465 (9th Cir.1989); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 12 In May 2014, SNAPS leased the “wireless radio frequency license, WQCP809,” which 13 consists of the 217.5-218 MHz and 219.5-220 MHz frequencies, from Kurian “in exchange for a 14 15 monthly payment of $20,390.00.” See ECF 55, Order on Summary Judgment Motions at 2. In 16 March 2019, Kurian terminated SNAPS’ lease and, in June 2019, he sued SNAPS for the 17 amounts remaining due under the Lease. 18 In May 2019, just two months after he terminated SNAPS’ lease, Kurian sold the 219.5- 19 220 MHz frequencies to PTC-220, LLC, a conglomeration of the seven largest railroads in the 20 United States. Kurian sold the frequencies for an amount that entirely mitigates his damages. 21 Further, despite informing PTC-220, LLC in October 2018 that he would terminate SNAPS’ 22 23 lease to facilitate the sale, Kurian continued to collect rent from SNAPS until March 2019. 24 Kurian breached the clause of “exclusive” rights of SNAPS in the Lease Agreement signed with 25 SNAPS. In addition, Kurian breached the clause of offering “cure period” for the delay in 26 payment from SNAPS and disregarded the clause in the Lease Agreement to offer SNAPS an 27 opportunity to buy the spectrum before he terminated the agreement. Kurian’s actions breached 28 1 the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 2 Since SNAPS discovered that Kurian mitigated his damages by selling the 219.5-220 3 MHz frequencies to PTC-220, LLC, Kurian has offered testimony that conflicts with his prior 4 positions in this matter, and with the Court’s summary judgment order. For example, at Kurian’s 5 November 10, 2023 deposition, he testified that SNAPS leased no frequencies and no channels: 6 Q.· · And that lease agreement says -- it's your understanding that 7 that lease agreement SNAPS cannot use any frequencies or any 8 channels?

9 A.· · Exhibit A neither have 217 or 219.· If Exhibit A have the 217 or 219, they can use. 10 Q.· · So if Exhibit A had 219.5 to 220, SNAPS could use those 11 frequencies? 12 A.· · Yes. 13 Q.· · And if Exhibit A had 217.5 to 218, SNAPS could use those 14 frequencies? 15 A.· · That's correct.

16 Q.· · But because Exhibit A contains no frequencies, SNAPS cannot use any frequencies or channels? 17 A.· · That's correct.· That's what exactly the party -- this is the 18 parties' agreement.· I've read this.· It's limited in all respect -- 19 limited in all respect by the parties' agreement.

20 This directly contradicts Kurian’s position at summary judgment: 21 First, Snaps received two things as consideration under the Agreement: (1) the exclusive right to operate in the geographic 22 locations and on the channels identified in Exhibit A to the contract, and (2) the option to purchase the frequencies. Specifically, the 23 Agreement provided Snaps, “the right to use certain frequencies of 24 the Licenses in certain areas, as defined in Exhibit A.” These leased frequencies are referred to in the Agreement as “Channels.” Exhibit 1, 25 p.1. This lease provided Snaps “the right to use on an exclusive basis the Channels” specified on Exhibit “A.” Id. The Agreement also 26 included an option contract, pursuant to which Snaps received the right to purchase Kurian’s “right, title and interest to the Channels.” 27 Exhibit 1, paragraph 3.”

28 1 It also directly contradicts this Court’s holding on summary judgment that (1) “Plaintiff 2 leased its wireless radio frequency license, WQCP809 to Defendant,” (2) the parties’ lease is 3 supported by consideration because “Plaintiff agreed to lease its License to Defendant in 4 exchange for a monthly payment of $20,390.00,” and (3) mutual assent exists because “[u]nder 5 the express terms of the Agreement, the parties agreed to Defendant providing substantial 6 services to the leased geographical area, in addition to Defendant leasing Plaintiff’s license.” See 7 8 ECF 55, Order on Summary Judgment Motions at 2, 7-8. Kurian cannot escape his mitigation of 9 damages by changing his testimony when confronted with evidence of the sale to PTC-220, 10 LLC. SNAPS leased the 219.5-220 MHz frequencies, and Kurian mitigated his damages by 11 selling those frequencies to PTC-220, LLC shortly after he terminated SNAPS’ lease. 12 C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: 13 1. On June 27, 2019, the Plaintiff and Counterdefendant THOMAS K. KURIAN 14 15 (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed his State Court Claim. 16 2. On September 19, 2019, Defendant and Counterclaimant SNAPS HOLDING 17 COMPANY (hereinafter “Defendant”) was served a Summons and Complaint on September 19, 18 2019. 19 3. On October 9, 2019, Defendant filed its Notice of Removal to United States 20 District Court [ECF No. 1] and its Certificate of Interested Parties [ECF No. 2], 21 4. On October 9, 2019, the Court issued its Minute Order in Chambers for case 22 23 removal [ECF No. 3] and the Court’s Standing Order [ECF No. 4] that the case was assigned to 24 the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro. 25 5. On October 15, 2019, Defendant answered Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 5]. 26 6. On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a limited response in Opposition [ECF No. 6] 27 to Defendant’s Petition for Removal [ECF No. 1]. 28 1 7. On October 24, 2019, Defendant filed a Certificate of Service [ECF No. 7] of the 2 Court’s Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 3] to Plaintiff’s counsel, E. Brent Bryson, Esq. 3 8. On October 24, 2019, Defendant filed its Removal Statement [ECF No. 8]. 4 9. On October 30, 2019, Defendant filed its Response [ECF No. 9] to Plaintiff’s 5 limited opposition [ECF No. 6] to Defendant’s Petition for Removal [ECF No 1]. 6 10. On November 8, 2019, the parties filed their Joint Status Report [ECF No. 10]. 7 8 11. On November 8, 2019, Rory C. Mattson, Esq., of the law firm of Messerli 9 Kramer, filed his Motion for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice - Verified Petition [ECF No. 10 11]. 11 12. On November 13, 2019, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 12 12] and Notice of Corrected Image [ECF No. 13] regarding Defendant’s counsel’s Motion for 13 Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice - Verified Petition [ECF No. 11]. 14 15 13. On November 25, 2019, the partiers filed a proposed discovery plan and 16 scheduling order [ECF No. 14]. 17 14. On November 26, 2019, the Court filed its Scheduling Order [ECF No. 15] that 18 granted the parties proposed plan [ECF No 14]. 19 15. On November 26, 2019, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 16] granting 20 Defendant’s counsel’s Verified Petition to practice pro hac vice [ECF No. 11]. 21 16. On January 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to 22 23 Add Parties [ECF No. 17]. 24 17. On January 13, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to 25 Complaint and Add Counterclaims [ECF No. 18]. 26 18. On January 21, 2020, Defendant filed a Response [ECF No. 19] to Plaintiff’s 27 Motion to Amend Complaint and Add Parties [ECF No. 18]. 28 1 19. On January 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition [ECF No. 20] to Defendant’s 2 Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Add Counterclaims [ECF No. 18]. 3 20. On January 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Reply [ECF No. 21] to Defendant’s 4 Response [ECF No. 19] to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint [ECF No. 17]. 5 21. On February 3, 2020, Defendant filed a Reply [ECF No 22] in Support of 6 Defendant’s Motion to Amend Answer and Add Counterclaims [ECF No 18]. 7 8 22. On February 12, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Interim Status Report [ECF No. 9 23]. 10 23. On February 12, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation for Confidentiality 11 Agreement and for Protective Order [ECF No. 24]. 12 24. On February 13, 2020, the Court filed an Order [ECF No. 25] granting the parties’ 13 Stipulation for Confidentiality Agreement / Protective Order [ECF No. 24]. 14 15 25. On March 20, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation [ECF No. 26] to amend the 16 scheduling order to extend the discovery cut-off date which the Court DENIED as presented on 17 March 23, 2020 [ECF No. 27]. 18 26. On April 21, 2020, the Court entered its Order [ECF No. 28] denying without 19 prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend Complaint to add parties [ECF No. 17]. 20 27. On April 27, 2020, the Court entered its Order [ECF No. 29] granting Plaintiff’s 21 motion for leave to amend Answer and add counterclaims [ECF No. 18]. 22 23 28. On April 27, 2020, Defendant filed its Amended Answer and Counterclaim [ECF 24 No. 30] regarding Petition for Removal [ECF No. 1]. 25 29. On May 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed his renewed Motion for Leave to Amend 26 Complaint to add parties [ECF No. 31]. 27 30. On May 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Answer [ECF No. 32] to 28 1 Defendant/Counterclaimant’s Answer with counterclaims [ECF No. 30]. 2 31. On May 15, 2020, Defendant filed its Response [ECF No.33] to Plaintiff’s 3 renewed Motion to Amend Complaint to add parties [ECF No. 31]. 4 32. On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Reply [ECF No. 35] to Defendant’s Response 5 [ECF No. 33] in support of Plaintiff’s motion for to amend complaint to add parties [ECF No. 6 31]. 7 8 33. On August 20, 2020, the Court filed its Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 9 36] denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s renewed motion to amend complaint to add parties 10 [ECF No. 31]. 11 34. On September 24, 2020, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 37] adopting in full 12 the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 36] and denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s 13 Renewed Motion for leave to amend complaint to add parties [ECF No. 31]. 14 15 35. On October 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 16 38]. 17 36. On November 17, 2020, Defendant filed its Response [ECF No. 40] to 18 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 38]. 19 37. On December 14, 2020, Defendant filed its Motion for Partial Summary 20 Judgment [ECF No. 43]. 21 38. On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Response [ECF No. 45] opposing 22 23 Defendant/Counterclaimant’s motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 43]. 24 39. On January 6, 2021, Defendant filed its Reply [ECF No. 46] in support of its 25 motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 43]. 26 40. On April 5, 2021, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 48] that, pursuant to 27 LR 16-5, this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah for a settlement 28 1 conference. 2 41. On April 6, 2021, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 49] setting a settlement 3 conference for June 15, 2021. 4 42. On June 15, 2021 the Court filed its Minutes of Settlement Conference 5 Proceedings [ECF No. 50] continuing settlement discussions for approximately 60 days and set a 6 telephonic status conference for Monday, August 16, 2021 at 11:00 AM. 7 8 43. On August 4, 2021, the parties filed their Stipulation and proposed order [ECF 9 No. 51] requesting the settlement conference set for June 15, 2021 be vacated and reset. 10 44. On August 5, 2021, the Court filed its Order [ECF No 52] granting the parties’ 11 stipulation to vacate the August 16, 2021 telephonic status conference and reset it to September 12 27, 2021. 13 45. On August 26, 2021, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 53] that vacated 14 15 the Telephonic Status Conference set for September 29, 2021 at 4:00 PM and reset it for October 16 1, 2021 at 9:30 AM. 17 46. On September 10, 2021, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 54] that 18 vacated the Telephonic Status Conference set for September 29, 2021 at 4:00 PM and reset it for 19 October 1, 2021 at 9:30 AM. 20 47. On September 27, 2021, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 55] that 21 granted/denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 38] and that 22 23 granted/denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 43]. 24 48. On October 1, 2021, the Court filed its Minutes of Proceedings [ECF No. 56] 25 regarding the Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/1/2021 and ordered that on or 26 before October 22, 2021, the parties are to submit either a discovery plan/scheduling order on 27 agreed upon discovery going forward, or a notice to the Court that no agreement can be reached 28 1 as discussed in open court and the transcript of these proceedings will serve as the Court's Order. 2 49. On October 14, 2021 the parties filed their Joint Notice of Compliance [ECF No. 3 57] stating that counsel for the parties met and conferred and determined that a motion for 4 clarification of the Court’s Order [ECF No. 55] regarding summary judgment. 5 50. On October 28, 2021, the parties filed their Joint Motion for Clarification [ECF 6 No. 58] regarding the Court’s Order [ECF No. 55] on the parties’ motions for summary 7 8 judgment [ECF Nos. 38 and 43]. 9 51. On August 23, 2021, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 59] Granting the parties’ 10 joint motion for clarification [ECF No. 58]. 11 52. On September 9, 2021, the parties filed their first Stipulation/Proposed Order 12 [ECF No. 60] to extend the deadline to file the proposed joint pretrial order. 13 53. On September 9, 2021, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 61] granting the 14 15 parties’ stipulation [ECF No. 60]. 16 54. On October 13, 2021, Defendant’s counsel, Brendan R. Tupa of Messerli & 17 Kramer, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, filed a Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac 18 Vice in this case only [ECF No.62]. 19 55. On October 13, 2022, Defendant filed its Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution 20 of Counsel [ECF No. 63]. 21 56. On October 13, 2022, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 64] Granting [ECF No. 22 23 62] Verified Petition for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice. 24 57. On October 14, 2022, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 65] Granting 25 [ECF No. 63] Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel. 26 58. On November 9, 2022, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 67] Granting [ECF No. 27 66] Stipulation for Extension of Time. 28 1 59. On November 10, 2022, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 68] requiring 2 the parties to file a Status Report confirming whether any discovery remains at issue and if a 3 settlement conference before joint pretrial order is due would be futile. 4 60. On November 23, 2022, the parties files their joint Status Report [ECF No. 69]. 5 61. On November 28, 2022, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 70] regarding 6 Status Report [ECF No. 69] setting a Zoom Discovery hearing for December 13, 2022. 7 8 62. On December 13, 2022, the Court filed Minutes [ECF No. 71] of the December 9 13, 2022 Proceedings and set an in-person Settlement Conference for April 25, 2023 with 10 confidential settlement briefs due by April 18, 2023. 11 63. On January 4, 2023, the Court filed the Transcript [ECF No. 73] of redacted 12 proceedings on December 13, 2022. 13 64. On February 22, 2023, Defendant filed its Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF 14 15 No. 74], Declaration in support of Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 75], and an 16 Affidavit of Service of Exhibits [ECF No. 77] to Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 17 65. On March 8, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Extend Time to file the Joint 18 Pretrial Order [ECF No. 78]. 19 66. On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Response in Opposition [ECF No. 79] to 20 Defendant's Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 21 67. On March 8, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 83] 22 23 striking ECF Nos. 80 and 81, as Plaintiff must file a single Response to Defendant’s Motion for 24 Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 25 68. On March 9, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 85] 26 vacating its previous Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 83], as Plaintiff’s Response in 27 Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Order to Show Cause is found at ECF No. 79. 28 1 69. On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Response in Opposition [ECF No. 86] to 2 Defendant’s Motion to Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74], the Declaration of Plaintiff [ECF 3 No. 86-1] and the Declaration of Plaintiff’s Counsel [ECF No 86-2]. 4 70. On March 9, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 87] 5 striking ECF No 82, Plaintiff’s Proposed Pretrial Order, and Granting ECF No. 78, Defendant’s 6 Motion to Extend Time to file the Joint Pretrial Order to May 25, 2023. 7 8 71. On March 16, 2023, Defendant filed its Reply [ECF No. 88] in Support of its 9 Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 10 72. On March 16, 2023, Defendant filed its Supplemental Declaration [ECF No. 89] 11 and Exhibit [ECF No 89-1] in Support of its Reply [ECF No. 88] supporting its Motion for Order 12 to Show Cause [ECF No 74]. 13 73. On April 18, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order [ECF No. 90] to 14 15 vacate the in-person Settlement Conference set for April 25, 2023 [ECF No. 71]. 16 74. On April 18, 2023, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 91] vacating the April 25, 17 2023 Settlement Conference and Continuing the Joint Pretrial due date. 18 75. On April 21, 2023, Defendant filed its Motion for Leave [ECF No. 92] to 19 Supplement its Reply Brief [ECF No. 88] in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Order to Show 20 Cause [ECF No. 74]. 21 76. On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Response [ECF Nos. 93 and 94] in Opposition 22 23 to Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Reply Brief [ECF No. 92] in Support of 24 Defendant’s Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 25 77. On May 10, 2023, Defendant filed its Reply [ECF No. 95] in Support of its 26 Motion for Leave to Supplement Reply Brief [ECF No. 92] in Support of Defendant’s Motion 27 for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 28 1 78. On May 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Strike [ECF No. 96] Plaintiff’s 2 Response in Opposition [ECF No. 93] to Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Reply 3 [ECF No. 92] in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 4 79. On June 12, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 97] 5 setting a June 21, 2023, 10:00 a.m. Hearing on Defendant’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause 6 [ECF No. 74], Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Reply Brief in Support of Motion 7 8 for an Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 92], and Plaintiff’s Notice of Withdrawal and Request to 9 Strike ECF No. 93, Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to SNAPS' Motion for Leave to 10 Supplement Reply [ECF No. 96]. 11 80. On June 20, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 98] 12 requiring Defendant file by June 20, 2023 documentary evidence of Plaintiff's Failure to Comply 13 with the Court’s Order [ECF No 73] and in support of Defendant’s Motion for Leave to 14 15 Supplement Reply Brief [ECF No. 92] in Support of Defendant’s Motion for an Order to Show 16 Cause [ECF No. 74]. 17 81. On June 20, 2023, Defendant filed Exhibits [ECF Nos. 99 and 100]. 18 82. On June 20, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 101] 19 Striking Defendant’s ECF Nos. 99 and 100. 20 83. On June 21, 2023, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 102] Granting in part and 21 Denying in part Defendant’s Motion for Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 74]. 22 23 84. On June 26, 2023, Transcript of June 21, 2023 Hearing [ECF No. 104]. 24 85. On June 26, 2023, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 105] temporarily releasing 25 Transcript [ECF No 104]. 26 86. On July 5, 2023, Defendant filed its Memorandum [ECF No. 106] in Support of 27 Attorneys’ Fees pursuant to the Court’s Order of June 21, 2023 [ECF No. 102] awarding 28 1 attorneys’ fees to Defendant, and Defendant’s Counsel’s Declaration and Exhibit [ECF Nos. 107 2 and 108] in Support of Defendant’s Memorandum [ECF No. 106]. 3 87. On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Response in Opposition [ECF No. 109] to 4 Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Attorney's Fees [ECF 102]. 5 88. On August 14, 2023, Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion/Stipulation [ECF No. 6 110] to Extend Discovery Deadline and Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Order [First Request]. 7 8 89. On August 14, 2023, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 111] Granting ECF No. 9 110, Unopposed Motion/Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadline and Deadline to File Joint 10 Pretrial Order [First Request]. 11 90. On October 19, 2023, Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion/Stipulation [ECF 12 No. 112] to Extend Discovery Deadline and Deadline to File Joint Pretrial Order [Second 13 Request to Extend Discovery Deadline; Fifth Request to Extend Deadline to File Joint Pretrial 14 15 Order]. 16 91. On October 19, 2023, The Court filed its Order [ECF No. 113] Granting the 17 Unopposed Motion/Stipulation [ECF No. 112] to Extend Discovery Deadline and Deadline to 18 File Joint Pretrial Order. 19 92. On October 24, 2023, the Court filed its Order [ECF No. 114] Granting 20 Defendant’s Attorney Fees related to its Subpoena to PTC-220. 21 93. On November 8, 2023, Counsel for Defendant filed Motions for Permission to 22 23 Practice Pro Hac Vice via Verified Petition [ECF Nos. 115 and 116]. 24 94. On November 8, 2023, the Court filed its Minute Order in Chambers [ECF No. 25 117] that deferred its ruling on Counsel for Defendant’s Pro Hac Vice Motions [ECF No. 115 26 and 116], and Ordered that Petitioners shall have until November 29, 2023, to file corrected 27 Verified Petitions using the "Notice of Corrected Image/Document" event. 28 1 95. On November 8, 2023, Counsel for Defendant filed Notices of Corrected 2 Image/Document [ECF Nos. 118 and 119] related to their Motions for Permission to Practice Pro 3 Hac Vice via Verified Petition [ECF Nos. 115 and 116]. 4 96. On November 8, 2023, the Court filed its Orders [ECF Nos. 120 and 121] 5 Granting Defendant’s Counsels’ verified Petitions to Practice Pro Hac Vice [ECF Nos. 115 and 6 116]. 7 8 97. On December 20, 2023, the parties filed their proposed Joint Pretrial Order [ECF 9 No. 122]. 10 98. On January 4, 2024, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 123] setting a 11 Status Conference to explain the deficiencies in the Proposed Joint Pretrial Order January 17, 12 2024, at 10:00 a.m. 13 99. On January 9, 2024, Counsel for Defendant SNAPS, Messerli & Kramer and 14 15 Kaemper Crowell, pursuant to LR 7-2 and LR IA 11-6(b), filed their motion to withdraw as 16 attorneys of record [ECF No. 124] and Declaration in support thereof [ECF No. 125]. 17 100. On January 9, 2024, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 126] requiring 18 Defendant’s Counsels’ Motion to Withdraw as Attorney [ECF No. 124] be heard at the Hearing 19 currently set for January 17, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. [ECF No. 123], in addition to addressing the 20 deficiencies in the Proposed Joint Pretrial Order. 21 101. On January 17, 2024, the Court filed its Minute Order [ECF No. 127] rejecting 22 23 the parties’ proposed joint pretrial order [ECF No. 122] to be revised and refiled by February 16, 24 2024, and Granting ECF No. 124, Defendant’s Counsels’ motion to withdraw as attorneys of 25 record. 26 102. On January 22, 2024, Defendant’s Counsel filed its Supplement [ECF No. 128] in 27 support of their motion to withdraw [ECF No. 124]. 28 1 103. On February 6, 2024, the Court filed a copy of the Transcript [ECF No. 129] of 2 the January 17, 2024 Proceedings regarding the Court’s Order [ECF No. 127] rejecting the 3 parties’ proposed Joint Pretrial Order [ECF No. 122], Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney 4 [ECF No. 124], and Status Conference held on 1/17/2024 [ECF No. 123]. 5 104. On February 7, 2024, Defendant’s new counsel, John R. Neve, Esq. of the law 6 offices of Quantum Lex, PA, Minnesota Bar No. 278300 (Motion Pro Hac Vice to be filed), 7 8 filed a Notice of Appearance [ECF No. 130] on behalf of the Defendant. 9 II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 10 Jurisdiction and Venue are proper in this court because the acts and omissions 11 complained of herein occurred and caused harm to Plaintiff in the City of Las Vegas, Nevada, 12 County of Clark. 13 III. THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES AND 14 REQUIRE NO PROOF: 15 A. The parties signed an agreement entitled Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement 16 dated May 19, 2014. 17 IV. THE FOLLOWING FACTS, THOUGH NOT ADMITTED, WILL NOT BE 18 CONTESTED AT TRIAL BY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY: 19 A. That there was a valid contract between the parties; 20 21 B. That the Defendants (Snaps) breached the valid contract; 22 C. That the Defendants (Snaps) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair 23 dealing; 24 25 D. That Kurian sold the 219.5-220 MHz frequencies to PTC-220, LLC; 26 V. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ISSUES OF FACT TO BE TRIED AND 27 DETERMINED AT TRIAL

28 1 A. PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES OF FACT 2 1. What are Plaintiff’s damages when the court has determined there to be 3 the existence of a valid, enforceable contract between the above-captioned parties, when 4 Plaintiff performed his duties and obligations that arose under or were imposed upon 5 Plaintiff by the terms of the contract, but when Defendant did not perform its duties and 6 obligations that arose under or were imposed upon Defendant by the terms of the contract 7 8 by repeatedly failing to timely pay, or not pay at all, its monthly payment to Plaintiff, a 9 material failure of performance and breach of the terms of the contract resulting in 10 damages to Plaintiff. 11 2. What are Plaintiff’s damages when the court has determined there to be 12 the existence of a valid, enforceable contract between the above-captioned parties that 13 imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and 14 15 execution of the terms of contract, and when Defendant breached its duty of performance 16 and execution of the terms of the contract by (1) failing to build out the leased channels; 17 (2) failing to make timely payments to Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the agreement; 18 (3) failing to provide Plaintiff with oversights; (4) failing to allow Plaintiff to inspect 19 Defendant’s operations; (5) failing to construct and operate to provide coverage to two- 20 thirds of the population; (6) failing to operate equipment pursuant to FCC authorization 21 and approval; and by (7) failing to provide engineering studies as per FCC regulation; 22 23 and thus acted in a manner unfaithful to the purpose, intent and spirit of the parties’ valid 24 and enforceable contract that resulted in Plaintiff’s justified expectations under the 25 contract being denied and required Plaintiff to rebuild the infrastructure himself to save 26 his license from being revoked by the FCC but, moreover, resulted in damages to 27 Plaintiff in the amount of $10,194,996.00. 28 1 B. DEFENDANT’S ISSUES OF FACT 2 Objection: Plaintiff Kurian objects to Defendant’s issues of fact to the extent 3 Defendants are attempting to relitigate this Court’s prior ruling in favor of Plaintiff on 4 summary judgment. 5 Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objection: It is well-settled that district courts 6 have the authority to reconsider and revise interlocutory orders, such as orders granting 7 8 motions for partial summary judgment. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th 9 Cir.1996) (“[T]he interlocutory orders and rulings made pre-trial by a district judge are 10 subject to modification by the district judge at any time prior to final judgment.”); Balla 11 v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.2d 461, 465 (9th Cir.1989); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 54(b). 13 1. Can Kurian change the Court’s holding on summary judgment that 14 15 SNAPS leased the “wireless radio frequency license, WQCP809” from Kurian “in 16 exchange for a monthly payment of $20,390.00” by later creating contradictory 17 testimony? See ECF 55, Order on Summary Judgment Motions at 2. 18 2. Did Kurian entirely mitigate his damages by selling the 219.5-220MHz 19 frequencies to PTC-220, LLC after terminating SNAPS’ lease? 20 3. What are Defendant’s damages for the Plaintiff’s breach of the implied 21 covenant of good faith and fair dealing? 22 23 VI. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ISSUES OF LAW TO BE TRIED AND 24 DETERMINED AT TRIAL 25 A. PLAINTIFF’S ISSUES OF LAW: 26 1. Is Defendant entitled to relief upon its counterclaims contained in 27 Defendant’s Amended Answer Adding Counterclaims, ECF No. 30? 28 1 2. As the Court has determined there to be the existence of a valid and 2 enforceable contract between the above-captioned parties, can Defendant maintain its 3 second cause of action for unjust enrichment in Defendant’s Amended Answer Adding 4 Counterclaims, ECF No. 30. 5 B. DEFENDANTS’ ISSUES OF LAW: 6 1. If the Court considers the evidence offered by Kurian after the Court’s 7 8 summary judgment order, what are the terms of the parties’ contract? 9 VII. EXHIBITS 10 A. The following exhibits are stipulated into evidence in this case and may be so 11 marked by the clerk: 12 1. The parties’ executed Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement dated May 19, 13 2014, Bates range KURIAN10387-KURIAN10408 [ECF No. 45-2]. 14 15 B. As to the following exhibits, the party against whom the same will be offered 16 objects to their admission on the grounds stated: 17 1. Objection: Plaintiff objects to any documents proffered by Defendants not 18 previously provided prior to the discovery cutoff date. 19 2. Objection: Defendant objects to any documents proffered by Plaintiff not 20 previously provided prior to the discovery cutoff date. 21 1. PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS: 22 23 Bates Range:

24 1. MAP - Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Areas (AMTSA) 1

25 2. Geographically Licensed Frequency for Purchase or Lease 2

26 3. NorthWestern Energy – Full Spectrum 3-4 27 4. April 23, 2014 Email Chain Subject: 7:30 PM on Tuesday 3/25/14 --- RE: Regarding 28 Frequency Spectrum in ND region 5-97 1 5. 2000 CENSUS 98-106 2 6. Map 107 3

4 7. Unexecuted Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement and Exhibit A 2000 Census 108-127

5 8. May 14, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Revised Agreement as per our discussions 128-286

6 9. May 19, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Background 287-298

7 10. May 19, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Frequency Lease 299-303 8 11. Map – Yampa Valley 304 9 12. May 22, 2014 Email Chain Subject: June Payment 305-310 10 13. May 30, 2014 Email Chain Subject: State of Montana cancels licenses to 11 700 MHz public-safety narrowband spectrum 311-325 12 14. June 2, 2014 Email Chain Subject: ACLARA --- RE: State of Montana 13 cancels licenses to 700 MHz public-safety narrowband spectrum 326-328

14 15. FCC Form 602 – Federal Communications Commission – 15 Information and Instructions 329-336

16 16. July 14, 2014 Keller and Heckman LLP July 18, 2014 Correspondence re: Application Requesting Modification of Lease ID L000010890 under 17 station WQCP809 337-340

18 17. FCC Form 608 Main Form - FCC Application or Notification for 19 Spectrum Leasing Arrangement and Attachments 341-403

20 18. FCC Form 602 Main Form and Schedule A – Federal Communications Commission Information and Instructions 404-411 21 19. July 25, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Public Interest Statement 412-545 22

23 20. August 8, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Payment 546-561

24 21. August 17,2014 Email Subject: Amit Paterl 562

25 22. Join Alcael-Lucent and Extenet Systems Conference on September 8, 2014 563-628

26 23. August 21, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Meeting at CCA 629 27 24. August 22, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Business Plan for North Dakota 630 28 1 25. August 22, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Sample Bugatry Pricing for 12 Band 12 eNode B's Hosted off of WCW Core 631-634 2 26. Business Plan (short form) 635 3

4 27. Acatel-Lucent Spectrum Holdings (FCC ULS 8/19/2014) ND & MN 636

5 28. August 22, 2014 Proposal #TBD; Tom Navone 637

6 29. August 25, 2014 Email Chain Subject: My meeting with Thomas Kurian 638-809

7 30. August 25, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Review Sprint Partnership Potential PDF 810-843 8 31. September 24, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Lease Deposit 844-855 9 32. September 24, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Need your advise 856-857 10 33. Executed Signature Pages to License Purchase Agreement between 11 Thomas K. Kurian and T-Mobile License 858-859 12 34. September 29, 2014 Email Subject: Albert Kangas, General Manger 13 and COO of NewCore Wireless 860

14 35. September 29, 2014 Email Subject: Dicky Rural and Seth Arndorfer, 15 CEO of Dakota Carrier Network. 861

16 36. September 29, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Fwd: 700 Mhz LTE system 862-872

17 37. September 29, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Re: SRT Communications 873-876

18 38. September 30, 2014 Email Subject: fyi 877-879 19 39. September 30, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: Meeting in NJ?? 880-866 20 40. October 1, 2014 Email Subject: I have been talking to you for 21 sometime about the Bakken you are not doing anything 887

22 41. October 1, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: FYI 888-906 23 42. October 1, 2014 Email Subject: You may want to read the 24 below FCC related proceedings 907

25 43. October 2, 2014 Email Subject: AMTS Radio 908

26 44. October 2, 2014 Email Subject: Lease Payment 909 27 45. October 3, 2014 Email Subject: San Jose Visit 910 28 1 46. FCC - ETSI Specifications Data Sheet 911

2 47. October 8, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: BEC Technologies 912-913

3 48. October 8, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: FW: The World of 4 Connectivity and Control Hits Las Vegas 914-969

5 49. October 28, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Fwd: FW: 4 Country Inn & Suites Stafford Virtual Deal Room | Real Capital Markets 970-990 6 50. November 5, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Re: 1031 Exchange 991-1184 7

8 51. November 10, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: Hotel Investments 1185-1188

9 52. November 16, 2014 Email Subject: Dakota Venture LLC 1189

10 53. November 17, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: Promissory note 1190-1191

11 54. Operating Agreement of Dakota Ventures, LLC 1192-1249 12 55. Dakota Ventures LLC - Minutes of Organizational Meeting 1250-1251 13 56. Minnesota Hospitality, Inc. - Promissory Note 1252-1253 14

15 57. November 18, 2014 Email Chain Subject RE: Promissory Note 1254-1267

16 58. Promissory Note and Security Agreement 1268-1269

17 59. November 22, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: Dakota Ventures LLC 1270-1419

18 60. December 4, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: Monthly lease payment 1420-1421 19 61. December 27, 2014 Email Chain Subject: RE: Real Estate Investments 1422-1424 20 62. Investment Summary 1425-1432 21 63. January 7, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Williniston Property 1433-1459 22

23 64. January 23, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Tom Kurian 1460-1464

24 65. March 6, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Yampa Valley 1465-1510

25 66. Transaction Activity 04/07/2015 1511

26 67. April 8, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: ACH 1512-1524 27 68. Confirmation - Transaction Date 5/13/2015 1525-1527 28 1 69. May 14, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: FW: Payment 1528-1571

2 70. June 8, 2015 Email Chain Subject: Re: Another empty promise 1572-1576

3 71. July 7, 2015 Email Chain Subject: Payment for Lease 1577-1578 4 72. August 7, 2015 Email Subject: Wire 1579 5 73. August 20, 2015 Email Chain Subject: Re: FCC Form 602 1580-1606 6 74. By The Numbers - Basin Electric Power Cooperative 1607 7

8 75. October 12, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Wire for Oct Pmt 1608-1621

9 76. October 26, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Xetawave radio 1622-1623

10 77. December 22, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Construction of systems 1624-1629

11 78. Public Interest Statement FCC Form 608 1630 12 79. Section 20.9(b) Certification 1631 13 80. February 3, 2016 Email Chain Subject: Re: W9 1632-1891 14

15 81. February 3, 2016 Email Chain Subject: Re: Lease Payment 1892-1902

16 82. FCC Universal Licensing System 1903-1906

17 83. February 9, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: Fwd: Fwd: SNAPS FCC Forms 1907-2412

18 84. FCC Application or Notification for Spectrum Leasing Arrangement 2413-2882 19 85. March 4, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: Lease Payment 2883-2884 20 86. March 28, 2016 Email Chain Subject: [Blank] 2885 21 87. May 11, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: KTS Agility Radio — RE: 2886-2888 22

23 88. June 6, 2016 Email Chain Subject: Re: Fwd: Understanding FCC rules regarding the Lease... 2889-3010 24 89. FCC DA 16-1167 ORDER and Attachment 3011-3087 25 90. Confirmation Transaction Date 8/11/2016 3088 26

27 91. June 29, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: Great River Project 3089-3090

28 92. Tait Communications Quote 3091 1 93. July 20, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: FW: Tait MPT1327 & Mobile Radio 3092-3101 2 94. November 7, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: Action Plan to deploy a 3 network to meet... 3102-3437 4 95. November 11, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: Phone call 3438-3445 5 96. FCC DA 10–664 Order on Reconsideration 3446-3449 6 97. January 1, 2017 Email Chain Subject: Re: FCC Construction Requirement 3450-3459 7

8 98. January 12, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Payment 3460-3469

9 99. January 18, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Sites — RE: Payment 3470-3482

10 100. 2016 IRS FORM 1099-MISC Thomas K. Kurian 3483-3484

11 101. 2017 IRS FORM W-9 Thomas K. Kurian 3485 12 102. February 1, 2017 Email Chain Subject: Re: W-9 3486-3518 13 103. March 6, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: lease 3519-3522 14

15 104. March 13, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Payment 3523-3524

16 105. April 21, 2017 Email Chain Subject: Re: Warren Havens vs. Kurian 3525-3526

17 106. May 4, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: An interesting reading 3527-3528

18 107. May 12, 2017 Email Subject: MCLM/Choctaw Holding got extension... 3529-3539 19 108. May 12, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: check 3540-3541 20 109. FCC DA 17-450 ORDER 3542-3551 21 110. June 7, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Part 80 or 90? 3552-3569 22

23 111. June 26, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Reminder — RE: Part 80 or 90? 3570-3591

24 112. July 12, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Payment 3592-3593

25 113. September 14, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Payment 3594-3595

26 114. September 26, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Returned check 3596-3624 27 115. October 17, 2017 Email Chain Subject: Re: Payment 3625-3637 28 1 116. November 11, 2017 Email Chain Subject: RE: Checking on the status of the check 3638-3639 2 117. October 12, 2017 FILED Notice of Entry of Judgment Upon Jury Verdict 3640-3643 3

4 118. January 25, 2018 Email Chain Subject: Re: Lease payment 3644-3652

5 119. February 16, 2018 Email Chain Subject: Re: Monthly Lease payment 3653-3658

6 120. March 12, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: NB-IoT 3659-2660

7 121. March 13, 2018 Email Subject: Did you send the payment? 3661 8 122. March 16, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: Payment not received still 3662-3674 9 123. April 18, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: status of check 3675-3681 10 124. FCC 601 Main Form – FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization 3682-3712 11

12 125. May 10, 2018 Email Chain Subject: Fwd: FN 0008200765 §90.259 App. Re WQCP816, WQJW656, WQNZ336, WQOC595 3713-3740 13 126. FCC 601 Main Form – FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization 3741-3762 14

15 127. May 11, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: Havens 3763-3772

16 128. May 14, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: FCC filing and check 3773-3783

17 129. ComStudy Mammoth Mtn.rs2 Monday, May 14, 2018 3784-3786

18 130. FCC Petition to Deny in the Matter of Polaris PNT PBC 3787-3791 19 131. May 18, 2018 Email Chain Subject: Re: Fwd: 20 FN 0008200765 §90.259 App. Re WQCP809 3792-4051

21 132. May 22, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: $250 Million for PTC Projects 4052-4053

22 133. May 31, 2018 Email Subject: Re: Just checking into see if guys planning 23 to make a timely payment this month. 4054

24 134. July 17, 2018 Email Chain Subject: Re: Fwd: Payment 4055-4098

25 135. May 31, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: PTC220 4099-4113

26 136. September 28, 2018 Email Subject: MiMax 4114 27 137. May 31, 2018 Email Chain Subject: RE: Payment 4115-4118 28 1 138. March 27, 2019 Thomas K. Kurian Letter to Sanjay Patel 4119-4120

2 139. January 8, 2019 Thomas K. Kurian Communication to Sanjay, NetHertz 4121

3 140. December 8, 2010 Letter to FCC 4122-4137 4 141. January 8, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Re: Termination of certain 5 AMTS license for the failure to provide substantial service 4138-4183

6 142. January 8, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Fwd: Thomas K Kurian's 03/26 Salt Lake City trip (VR2J7K): Your reservation is confirmed. 4184-4189 7

8 143. March 23, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Fwd: Thomas K Kurian's 03/30 Phoenix trip (VRPBWK): Your reservation is confirmed. 4190-4195 9 144. March 23, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Fwd: Thomas K Kurian's 10 04/03 El Paso trip (VSF2BU): Your reservation is confirmed. 4196-4202

11 145. March 25, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Re: Please call me on phone ASAP 4203-4207 12 146. March 27, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Re: Next Payment 4208-4873 13 147. FCC DA 18-322 – Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 4874-4882 14

15 148. April 3, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Re: Asset Purchase of AMTS Spectrum in the 217.5-218 MHz band 4883-4896 16 149. FCC Spectrum Leasing 4897-4898 17 150. Substantial Service 4899 18

19 151. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations 4900-4924

20 152. FCC Order 4925-4942

21 153. October 22, 2020 Republic Services Las Vegas Payment History 4944-4953

22 154. April 25, 2016 Crown Castle Letter to Vegas Wireless LLC 4954 23 155. First Amendment to Short Form Tower License Agreement 4955-4962 24 156. Mutual Nondisclosure Agreement 4971-4973 25 157. June 21, 2018 Gmail Chain Subject: Idaho Power Spectrum Purchase 4974-4982 26

27 158. Confidentiality Agreement 4983-4986 28 159. WQCP 809 Allocation Chart 4987 1 160. ECF NO. 45-2: EXHIBIT 1: Executed Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement

2 161. ECF NO. 45-3: EXHIBIT 2: February 3, 2016 Email Chain Regarding: W9

3 163. ECF NO. 45-4: EXHIBIT 3: December 22, 2015 Email Chain Regarding: Construction of 4 Systems

5 164. ECF NO. 45-5: EXHIBIT 4: November 7, 2016 Email Chain Regarding: Action Plan to Deploy a Network to Meet the FCC’s Coverage Requirement 6 165. ECF NO. 45-6: EXHIBIT 5: January 1, 2017 Email Chain Regarding: FCC Construction 7 Requirement 8 166. ECF NO. 45-7: EXHIBIT 6: June 6, 2016 Email Chain Subject: Understanding FCC Rules 9 167. ECF NO. 45-8: EXHIBIT 7: March 27, 2019 Email Chain Subject: Next Payment 10 168. ECF NO. 45-9: EXHIBIT 8: Register of Actions dated December 22, 2020 for Case No.: 11 A-19-797577-C, Thomas K. Kurian vs. Snaps Holding Company 12 169. ECF NO. 45-10: EXHIBIT 9: Deposition Excerpts of August 5, 2022 Deposition of 13 Plaintiff Thomas Kurian - Pages 1, 138, 139, and 217.

14 170. Deposition Transcript from the November 10, 2023 deposition of Plaintiff Thomas Kurian. 15 171. Parties’ executed Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement dated May 19, 2014, 16 Bates range KURIAN10387-KURIAN10408 [ECF No. 45-2].

17 172. Parties’ executed Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 21, 2013, Bates range KURIAN10445-KURIAN10461. 18

19 173. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatory and Document Responses to SNAPS’ Requests and Pursuant to ECF 102; including Bates range: KURIAN05040-KURIAN05043; 20 KURIAN10443-KURIAN10461.

21 Plaintiff reserves the right to use any and all exhibits disclosed and/or admitted by 22 Defendant in this matter. 23 Plaintiff reserves the right to use impeachment exhibits as permitted by applicable court 24 law. 25 a. Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s Exhibits: 26 27 1. Defendant objects to any documents proffered by Plaintiff 28 not previously provided prior to the discovery cutoff date. 1 2. DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBITS: 2 1. All exhibits identified by Plaintiff. 3 2. April 23, 2014 Email Chain Subject: 7:30 PM on Tuesday 3/25/14 --- RE: Regarding 4 Frequency Spectrum in ND region, Bates KURIAN 05-97. 5 3. May 14, 2014 Email Chain Subject: Revised Agreement as per our discussions, Bates 6 KURIAN 128-286. 7 8 5. March 6, 2015 Email Chain Subject: RE: Yampa Valley, Bates KURIAN 1465-1510.

9 5. February 3, 2016 Email Chain Subject: Re: W9, Bates KURIAN 1632-1891. 10 6. February 9, 2016 Email Chain Subject: RE: Fwd: Fwd: SNAPS FCC Forms Bates 11 12 KURIAN 1907-2412. 13 7. Lease Spectrum Range Map, Bates KURIAN10464 14 8. Asset Purchase Agreement between Plaintiff and PTC-220, LLC for 219.5-220MHz 15 frequencies in call sign WQCP809, dated, May 31, 2019, and related closing documents, 16 Bates PTC-220_SNAPS_Subpoena_000001-036. 17 9. Email communications between Plaintiff and PTC-220, LLC, Bates PTC- 18 19 220_SNAPS_Subpoena_003097-3102. 20 10. Email communications between Plaintiff and PTC-220, LLC, Bates PTC- 21 220_SNAPS_Subpoena_003113-3115. 22 11. Email communications between Plaintiff and PTC-220, LLC, Bates PTC- 23 220_SNAPS_Subpoena_003690-91. 24 12. Email communications between Plaintiff and PTC-220, LLC, Bates PTC- 25 220_SNAPS_Subpoena_000173-178 26 27 13. Transcript from August 5, 2020 deposition of Plaintiff Thomas Kurian. 28 14. Transcript from November 10, 2023 deposition of Plaintiff Thomas Kurian. 1 15. Transcript from July 19, 2023 deposition of Kevin Stokes, representative for PTC- 2 220, LLC. 3 Defendant reserves the right to use all exhibits disclosed and/or admitted by Plaintiff in 4 this matter. 5 Defendant reserves the right to use impeachment and rebuttal exhibits as permitted by 6 applicable court rules. 7 8 a. Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant’s Exhibits: 9 1. Plaintiff objects to the use of depositions by Defendant 10 where the Defendant failed to provide the pages of any depositions 11 Defendant plans to use. See ECF 15, Discovery Plan and 12 Scheduling Order. 13 2. Plaintiff objects to any of Defendant’s exhibits if the 14 15 documents were not provided previously before the discovery 16 cutoff date. 17 C. Electronic Evidence: 18 The parties are likely to present electronic evidence for out of state witnesses who 19 are now parties. 20 D. Depositions: 21 1. Plaintiff will offer the following depositions: 22 23 a. Deposition excerpts of the August 5, 2022 deposition of Plaintiff 24 Thomas Kurian, Pages 1, 81, 84, 85, 86, 101, 102, 103, 104, 138, 25 139; 192, and 217. 26 b. Deposition excerpts of the July 29, 2020 deposition of Sanjay 27 Patel, Pages 1, 37, 39, 58, 59, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 28 1 82, 92, 93, 104, 116, 117, 118. 2 c. Deposition excerpts of the July 19, 2023 deposition of PTC-220, 3 LLC’s 30(b)(6) witness Kevin Stokes, Pages 1, 11, 18, 21, 22, 23, 4 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 5 48, 49, 50 , 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 6 74, 75, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 87, 89, 148, 150, 151, 156, 157, 158, 7 8 159, 161. 9 d. Deposition excerpts of the July 30, 2020 deposition of Daivesh 10 Sanghvi, Pages 1, 5, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 11 32, 33, 34, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 63, 12 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 85, 87. 13 e. Plaintiff reserves the right to use any and all deposition testimony 14 15 for any lawful purpose. 16 2. Defendant will offer the following depositions: 17 a. July 19, 2023 deposition of Kevin Stokes, representative for PTC- 18 220, LLC. Based upon new counsel’s recent retention, Defendant 19 is unable to identify exact page numbers at this time. Defendant 20 states that Kevin Stokes is a key witness and believes the majority 21 of his deposition testimony will be relevant. 22 23 b. Defendant reserves the right to use all deposition testimony for any 24 lawful purpose. 25 E. Objections to depositions: 26 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s depositions as follows: None. 27 2. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s depositions as follows: 28 1 a. Plaintiff objects to the use of depositions by Defendant where 2 Defendant has not identified page numbers of the depositions sought to be 3 used. See ECF 15, except for purposes of impeachment. 4 VIII. THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES MAY BE CALLED BY THE PARTIES AT 5 TRIAL:

6 A. PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES: 7 1. Thomas K. Kurian 8 C/o E. Brent Bryson, Esq. 375 E. Warm Springs Road, Ste. 104 9 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 364-1234 Telephone 10 (702) 364- 1442 Facsimile Ebbesqltd@yahoo.com 11

12 Plaintiff is expected to testify regarding the terms and provisions of the parties’ contract, 13 and how the contract came about, Defendants’ breach of the contract, Plaintiff’s efforts to 14 mitigate his damages, Plaintiff’s attempts to mitigate damages, and Plaintiff’s attempts to 15 informally resolve the dispute and Plaintiff’s damages. 16 2. John C. Gazzo 17 12950 Quebec Street Brighton, CO 80602 18 (303) 949-1266 Telephone 19 Mr. Gazzo is expected to testify regarding the use of his transmitting site by SNAPS 20 using unauthorized equipment which is not certified by the FCC as well as his conduct in 21 violation of the parties’ agreement. 22 23 3. Sanjay Patel President and CEO of SNAPS Holding Company 24 Mr. Patel is expected to testify regarding the parties’ contract and SNAPS conduct in 25 breaching the parties’ agreement. 26 27 4. Daivesh Sanghvi Vice President of SNAPS Holding Company 28 1 Mr. Sanghvi is expected to testify regarding the construction and substantial coverage of 2 the FCC Stations as well as his knowledge regarding the parties’ contract. 3 5. Thomas Klyve 4 Controller for SNAPS Holding Company

5 Mr. Klyve is expected to testify regarding his knowledge about payments to Plaintiff 6 pursuant to the parties’ contract. 7 6. Steve Lee 8 Direct of IDA

9 Mr. Lee is expected to testify regarding the installation and operation of the licenses. 10 7. PTC-220, LLC’s 30(b)(6) witness regarding the contract between Thomas K. Kurian and 11 PTC-220, LLC, as well as his knowledge regarding the instant action. 12 1. Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Witnesses: 13 Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s witnesses to the extent those witnesses 14 15 will testify to matters decided in the Court’s summary judgment order, and to the 16 parties’ settlement discussions. 17 B. DEFENDANT’S WITNESSES 18 1. Sanjay Patel 19 President and CEO of SNAPS Holding Company

20 Mr. Patel is expected to testify regarding the parties’ lease, SNAPS’ payments under the 21 lease, and the parties’ communications. 22 2. Daivesh Sanghvi 23 Vice President of SNAPS Holding Company

24 Mr. Sanghvi is expected to testify regarding the parties’ lease, SNAPS’ payments under 25 the lease, and the parties’ communications. 26 3. Thomas K. Kurian 27 28 1 Mr. Kurian is expected to testify regarding the parties’ lease, the parties’ 2 communications, and his contract with PTC-220, LLC for the 219.5-220MHz frequencies, and 3 the money he received for the frequencies. 4 4. Kevin Stokes, representative for PTC-220, LLC, by deposition. 5 Mr. Stokes is expected to testify regarding the Asset Purchase Agreement between PTC- 6 220, LLC and Kurian for the 219.5-220 MHz frequencies and the compensation Kurian 7 8 received for the frequencies. 9 1. Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendants’ Witnesses: None. 10 IX. THE ATTORNEYS OR PARTIES HAVE MET AND JOINTLY OFFER THESE THREE TRIAL DATES 11 12 1. September 3-6, 2024; 13 2. September 16-20, 2024; 14 3. September 23-27, 2024. 15 X. TRIAL 16 It is estimated that trial will take a total of 3-5 days. 17 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: 18 19 DATED this 16th day of February, 2024. DATED this 16th day of February, 2024.

20 E. BRENT BRYSON, LTD. QUANTUM LEX, P.A.

21 By: /s/ E. Brent Bryson, Esq. By: /s/: John R. Neve, Esq. 22 E. BRENT BRYSON, ESQ. JOHN R. NEVE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 004933 Minnesota Bar No. 278300 23 E. BRENT BRYSON, LTD. Motion Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed 375 E. Warm Springs Road, Ste. 104 QUANTUM LEX, PA 24 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 6800 France Avenue South, Suite 405 (702) 364-1234 Telephone Minneapolis, MN 55435 25 (702) 364-1442 Facsimile (952) 746-2400 Telephone 26 Ebbesqltd@yahoo.com jneve@quantumlex.io Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, Attorney for Defendant/Counterclaimant, 27 Thomas K. Kurian Snaps Holding Company

28 1 DATED this ____ day of December, 2023. 2 KAEMPFER CROWELL 3 4 By: /s/: RICHARD G. CAMPBELL, JR. 5 Nevada Bar No. 001832 50 W. Liberty Street, Suite 700 6 Reno, NV 89501 (775)852-3900 Telephone 7 (775)327-2011 Facsimile 8 Rcampbell@kcnvlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant, 9 SNAPS 10 XI. ACTION BY COURT 11 bench 12 This case is set for a jury trial on the fixed/stacked calendar on _9_/_2_3_/2_0_2_4_ _a_t_ 8_:_3_0_ a. .m. 13 Calendar call will be held on __9_/_1_7_/2_0_2_4_ _at_ _9_:0_0_ _a._m__.___________________________. 14 This pretrial order has been approved by the parties to this action as evidenced by their 15 signatures or the signatures of their attorneys hereon, and the order is hereby entered and will 16 govern the trial of this case. This order may not be amended except by court order and based 17 upon the parties’ agreement or to prevent manifest injustice. 18 19 20 21 __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28