Supporting Documents

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO


Civil Action No. 2017-CV-210-MJW

 

LIST INTERACTIVE, LTD. D/B/A UKNIGHT INTERACTIVE,
LEONARD S. LABRIOLA
     Plaintiffs,


v.


KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS,
THOMAS P. SMITH, JR.
MATTHEW A. ST. JOHN,
     Defendants

 

24.

2017 10 13 - COURT ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

23.

2017 10 10 - RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
UKnight: The membership records UKnight is seeking will prove that either UKnight is correct or that KC Inc. is correct.

22.

2017 10 11 - RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR TRO (Amended)
KC Inc.: The court should prohibit UKnight from getting any Knights of Columbus membership information.

   

a.

  Exhibit 1 - Kevin Brady email: “Uknight may be a piece of the puzzle that brings Ingenium, Member Management & Smartoffice all into real time synchronization for the benefit of everyone.”

b.

  Exhibit 2 - Ian Kinkade: Report from 2015 06 16 v2.01
c.   Exhibit 3 - UKnight: 15-page response to KC Inc. explaining elements of its business and responding to specific questions from KC Inc.
d.   Exhibit 4 - UKnight: Final Proposals to KC Inc.
e.   Exhibit 5 - Ian Kinkade: Report from 2015 11 04 v1.3

f.

  Exhibit 6 - KC Inc: UKnight Plan 2 Assessment

g.

  Exhibit 7 - KC Inc: CBI Report: Review of UKnight Interactive Proposals of September 4, 2015
h.   Exhibit 8 - KC Inc e-Business: UKnight Plan 2 Assessment
i.   Exhibit 9 - KC Inc: Memo from Matt St. John, Denise, Tanya, and Chuck regarding UKnight
j.   Exhibit 10 - KC Inc: Affidavit of David Nolan

k.

  Exhibit 11 - UKnight: Email Comment on KC Inc member list security

l.

  Exhibit 12 - UKnight: Email regarding available Member Reports
m.   Exhibit 13 - KC Inc: Affidavit of Javier S. Martinez
n.   Exhibit 14 - KC Inc: Affidavit of Albert A. Cala

o.

  Exhibit 15 - KC Inc: Affidavit of Brian Caulfield

 

21.

2017 09 25 - Reply in Support of Motion to Amend
UKnight: The information in the Amended Complaint is valid, it is relevant, it is important, and it should be allowed to be part of this case.

   

a.

  Exhibit 1 - Bob Ippoliti Email

b.

  Exhibit 2 (Part 1) - Unredacted Affidavits
c.   Exhibit 2 (Part 2) - Unredacted Affidavits
d.   Exhibit 3 - KC Internal Discussion re Competition
e.   Exhibit 4 - KofC Charter

 

20.

2017 09 25 - Emergency TRO Witness Tampering Sanctions
UKnight: The information that UKnight received from Councils prior to the misleading email sent by KC Inc. validates UKnight's claims, and the Court should, among other things, order KC Inc. to issue an immediate retraction email to all recipients of its September 22, 2017 email because UKnight's request for information was legitimate.

   

CLICK HERE to see the transcript from #18 - bottom of page 11, "MR. VAIL (UKnight's attorney): We have numerous contacts with the individual local councils. We would contact them and ask for -- they have what's called membership secretaries in each local council, and ask them for their internal records, are these the people you have as members, and have they, in fact, paid dues to you."

 

CLICK HERE to see the transcript from #18 - middle of page 15, "The Court's order is that the defendant produce to the plaintiff what he calls membership information."

 

a.

  Exhibit 1 - 3/20/2017 Hearing Transcript Excerpts

b.

  Exhibit 2 - Defendant's 9-22-17 Email
c.   Exhibit 3 - Plaintiff's 9-22-17 Email
d.   Exhibit 4 - Response to Request for Admission No 4
e.   Exhibit 5 - Email forwarded by Archdiocese of Denver
f.   Exhibit 6 - KoC Charter Constitution
g.   Exhibit 7 - Reply from MI Council

 

19.

2017 09 25 - Defendant's Motion for Protective Order
KC Inc.: The Court should order UKnight to cease receiving membership information or data provided as a result of the Mass Email, be ordered to disclose all information and data obtained in connection with the Mass Email, to destroy all copies of any information they received, and certify to KC Inc. and the Court that they have done so.

 

18.

2017 09 12 - Transcript of Hearing on whether UKnight can have member list data
This telephonic hearing addressed UKnight's request for KC membership information.

 

17.

2017 08 16 – UKnight – Motion to Amend the Complaint
UKnight: Judge already gave UKnight permission, UKnight is asking for permission anyway.

   

a.

 

2017 08 16 – UKnight – Second Amended Complaint
UKnight: Given the kinds of salaries taken by KC executives and other issues, UKnight believes the court has much more to consider/p>

 

16.

2017 07 28 – Order of the Court – Motions to Dismiss
The Judge ruled to retain most of the claims, dismiss others, and give UKnight permission to replead, or "fix", elements of the RICO claim that was dismissed.

 

15.

2017 03 22 – KC Inc. – Reply in Support of Lack of Jurisdiction over Smith and St. John
KC Inc.: UKnight is wrong, and the Court really does not have jurisdiction over Tom and Matt

 

14.

2017 03 22 – KC Inc. – Reply in Support of Dismissing Certain Claims in UKnight's Complaint
KC Inc.: UKnight is wrong, and the Judge should dismiss certain claims

 

13.

2017 03 12 – UKnight – Response to their Motion to Quash and Protective Order
UKnight: The more facts we can get the more likely we will find the truth.

 

12.

2017 03 10 – KC Inc. – Motion to Quash and for a Protective Order
KC Inc.: UKnight should be blocked from getting information from certain parties

 

11.

2017 03 08 – UKnight – Response to their Motion to Dismiss Jurisdiction
UKnight – This is why Colorado Federal Court does have jurisdiction.

 

10.

2017 03 08 – UKnight – Response to their Motion to Dismiss Claims
UKnight – This is why the Court should not dismiss certain claims.

 

9.

2017 03 02 – Order of the Court – Minute Order Regarding Protective Order
The judge issued this ruling from the bench after listening to both sides

 

8.

2017 03 02 – Transcript on Hearing for the Emergency Protective Order
The judge ordered both sides to come in and explain – this is the transcript.

 

Key Quote from Federal District Court Judge Jackson (transcript excerpt)


But it should be absolutely clear that anybody whose identity is revealed as a so-called whistleblower, as this communication states, and trust me when I tell you I mean this, may not be retaliated against. They can't be terminated, fired, or sanctioned in any way because of their cooperation with the plaintiff, and I suggest that if somebody comes up with an alternate reason for terminating some of these people, it better be very darn good, or I will assume and conclude that it is pretextual, and you will not be happy campers. I want these people to be freely able to say what they have to say without being sanctioned by the company for what they have said.

 

7.

2017 02 26 – UKnight – Reply in Support of Emergency Motion for Protective Order
UKnight – Yes KC was trying to intimidate potential witnesses

 

6.

2017 02 23 - KC Inc - Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims in the UKnight Amended Complaint
KC Inc. – Certain claims brought by UKnight are not legitimate.

 

5.

2017 02 23 - KC Inc - Motion to Dismiss Smith & St. John for lack of Personal Jurisdiction
KC Inc – Why UKnight cannot sue Smith and St. John in Colorado

 

4.

2017 02 23 - KC Inc - Response to Emergency Motion for Protective Order
KC Inc. – We were not trying to keep members from talking to UKnight

 

3.

2017 02 14 Motion for Forthwith Consideration: It was important to let Knights of Columbus members know as soon as possible that there would be no negative consequences if they spoke to UKnight. So UKnight filed this Motion for Forthwith Consideration to let the Court know that time was of the essence.

 

2.

2017 02 14 Emergency Motion for a Protective Order: When the Knights of Columbus heard that UKnight had so much support among the Councils and Agents, they sent out a mass email in an effort to keep any of their members from talking to UKnight. UKnight thought this was improper, and filed this request for a Protective Order with the Court.

   

a.

  Exhibit A - Labriola Affidavit (Signed)

b.

  Exhibit B - 2/10/2017 Email from Supreme (REDACTED)
c.   Exhibit C - Whistleblower #1 Affidavit (REDACTED)
d.   Exhibit D - Whistleblower #2 Affidavit (REDACTED)
e.   Exhibit E - Whistleblower #3 Affidavit (REDACTED)
f.   Exhibit F - Whistleblower #4 Affidavit (REDACTED)
g.   Exhibit G - Whistleblower #5 Affidavit (REDACTED)
h.   Exhibit H - Whistleblower #6 Affidavit (REDACTED)
i.   Exhibit I - Whistleblower #7 Affidavit (REDACTED)

 

1.

2017 02 10 First Amended Complaint: The initial lawsuit was filed on January 24, 2017. There were a few new bits of information that came up that UKnight thought were important to add, so they quickly amended that first complaint. That is why this is called the "First Amended Complaint".

 

 

 

 

Information of Interest