scotsman sues john broadbent federal 2011

8/3/2019 Scotsman Sues John Broadbent Federal 2011

1/35

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.

SCOTSMAN INDUSTRIES, INC. and

MILE HIGH EQUIPMENT LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN A. BROADBENT,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Scotsman Industries, Inc. (SII) and Mile High Equipment LLC (Mile High)

(collectively Plaintiffs) state as follows for their complaint against John A. Broadbent

(Broadbent):

INTRODUCTION

1. This action is brought to address defendant Broadbents computer fraud and abusein accessing and downloading electronic files containing a massive amount of Plaintiffs

confidential information in the days prior to the resignation of his employment, and making false

and misleading representations that he had returned all electronic files to Plaintiffs, as well as the

impairment of the integrity of this information caused when Broadbent subsequently transferred

it to a computer not issued or owned by Plaintiffs that Broadbent was and is using for a new

venture that, among other things, develops and markets technology to Plaintiffs competitors.

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1 Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 19


2/35

-2-

This conduct violates the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, breaches Broadbents

contractual and fiduciary duties and his duty of loyalty, and violates the Colorado Uniform Trade

Secrets Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 7-74-101 et seq.

FACTS

The Parties and Jurisdiction

2. Plaintiff SII is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business inVernon Hills, Illinois. SII is a holding company and the ultimate parent company of Mile High.

3. Plaintiff Mile High is a Colorado limited liability company with its principal placeof business in Denver, Colorado. Mile High is engaged in the business of designing,

manufacturing and selling ice machines, ice dispensers, ice bins and related equipment

(collectively, the ice machine equipment) under the Ice-O-Matic brand name.

4. Defendant Broadbent is a citizen of Colorado residing in Centennial, Colorado.Broadbent was employed as a key executive in Plaintiffs ice machine equipment business, as

described below. Broadbent left such employment to join a new, start-up venture that develops

ideas and technology for improving ice machine equipment and markets those ideas and

technologies to ice machine equipment manufacturers that compete with Plaintiffs (the New

Venture).

5. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over Count I pursuant to 28 U.S.C.1331 and 18 U.S.C. 1030 and supplemental jurisdiction over all other counts pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1367.



3/35

-3-

Plaintiffs Development of Confidential Information

And Broadbents Access to That Information

6. The market for ice machine equipment is highly competitive, with marketparticipants constantly attempting to develop new and different products and features, improve

marketing efforts, maintain and expand market penetration, reduce manufacturing costs and

increase sales. In particular, the development of new and improved products and technology is

central to effective competition in the ice machine equipment marketplace. Plaintiffs have

invested substantial sums of dollars identifying new product and product improvement ideas and

opportunities, researching and developing those ideas and opportunities, and designing new

products and product improvements for the ice machine equipment marketplace.

7. Broadbent became employed by Mile High as its Director of Marketing in August2001, and later became its Vice President of Engineering in May 2002, a position he held until

January 2010. In January 2010, he became Vice President of Research and Development -

Americas, with research and development responsibility for both of SIIs ice machine equipment

manufacturing companies in the United States, including Mile High. After this last change in

title, Broadbent remained a Mile High employee, receiving his salary, benefits and W-2 forms

from Mile High and continuing to work from Mile Highs facility in Denver, Colorado, until he

resigned his employment.

8. As a result of his engineering and product development positions, Broadbentbecame deeply knowledgeable about Plaintiffs products and was part of a small group of key

executives responsible for helping Plaintiffs in their effort to improve their product offerings and

to identify, research and develop new and improved product ideas and opportunities. Broadbent



4/35

-4-

had access to, and participated in the development of, a wealth of non-public, confidential, and

highly valuable information regarding Plaintiffs ice machine equipment business.

9. Mile High maintains electronic document and data storage systems and servers(the Company Systems), and Plaintiffs confidential information was, at all relevant times,

maintained on those systems and servers. Mile High issued a laptop computer to Broadbent for

his use in performing his duties (the Company Laptop).

COUNT I VIOLATION OF THECOMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT, 18 U.S.C. 1030

10. Plaintiffs incorporate and restate paragraphs 1 through 9 as if fully set forthherein.

11. The Company Laptop is a protected computer within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.1030(e)(2), in that it was used by Broadbent, for the benefit of Plaintiffs, to engage in interstate

and foreign commerce and communication, including email communications with individuals

located in foreign states and countries, and to otherwise conduct Plaintiffs ice machine

equipment business across state lines, via the internet.

12. Broadbent was not authorized to use the Company Laptop or the CompanySystems to download company files, especially files containing confidential information, for

retention and use after his departure. Broadbent was not authorized to retain or possess any

company files, and especially files containing confidential information, after cessation of his

employment.



5/35

-5-

13. Broadbent used the Company Laptop to engage in conduct that was notauthorized by Plaintiffs. Specifically, on December 27, 2010 one week before he informed the

Plaintiffs of his resignation:

(a) Knowing of his impending resignation and intending to obtain confidentialinformation from the Company Computer and the Company Systems for his post-employment

use in working for the New Venture and for the benefit of its actual and prospective clients,

including without limitation, competitors of Plaintiffs (the Competitive Work), Broadbent

attached a portable, detachable hard drive (the Portable Hard Drive) to his Company

Computer, without authorization from Plaintiffs; and

(b) Knowing of his impending resignation and intending to obtain confidentialinformation from the Company Computer and the Company Systems for his post-employment

Competitive Work, Broadbent issued to the Company Computer a command that caused it to

download onto the Portable Hard Drive electronic files that included a massive amount of

confidential information from the Company Computer and the Company Systems, without

authorization from Plaintiffs.

14. On January 3, 2011, the Monday following his massive downloading ofconfidential information onto the Portable Hard Drive, Broadbent orally notified Plaintiffs that

he was resigning. Broadbent later presented written confirmation of his resignation in the form

of a letter dated January 6, 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

15. From and after Broadbents downloading of Plaintiffs electronic files onto thePortable Hard Drive, Broadbent failed to disclose to Plaintiffs that he had downloaded that

information and created an unauthorized copy of that information on the Portable Hard Drive.



6/35

-6-

Broadbent did not reveal this information when he gave oral notice of his resignation, when he

submitted his written letter of resignation, or at any time thereafter.

16. Moreover, Broadbent answered falsely on January 10, 2011 when Plaintiffsspecifically asked him to confirm that he had not downloaded any electronic files or otherwise

possessed any such files on any kind of portable storage device. On that date, Broadbent signed

a Departing Employee Acknowledgment in which he affirmatively represented as follows:

I have returned to the Company all documents and materials in my possession

regarding the Companys designs, drawings, processes, programs, research anddevelopment, engineering, product development, procedures, formulas,techniques, inventions, ideas, marketing and sales data and programs, customers,suppliers, financial data, manufacturing costs, pricing, computer programs,computer data, customer service protocols, competitors, competitive analysis,actual or prospective acquisition candidates and opportunities, and sales andmarketing plans and strategies;

I have not retained any copies of any such documents or materials, in either paperor electronic form;

I have returned to the Company all other Company property, including allcomputers, software, computer disks, electronic data storage devices, cell phones, pagers, keys, credit cards, and building passes and other access devices to theCompany premises; and

I have turned over to the Company all portable electronic data storage devices(including disks, thumb drives, flash drives, back-up drives, etc.) that I have usedin connection with my Company-issued computer.

A copy of this Acknowledgement is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

17. On January 27, 2011, after learning through a third-party forensic analysis of theCompany Laptop that Broadbent had, in fact, connected a Portable Hard Drive and downloaded

Plaintiffs confidential information onto that drive, Plaintiffs met with Broadbent, informed him

that they had discovered his use of the Portable Hard Drive and demanded its return. When told

that forensic evidence clearly revealed that he had connected a particular serial-numbered hard



7/35

-7-

drive to his Company Laptop one week before his notice of resignation, Broadbent finally

admitted that he had attached the Portable Hard Drive to his Company laptop, loaded it with

Plaintiffs confidential information, retained that drive after his resignation, and continued to

possess it.

18. Plaintiffs demanded that Broadbent immediately turn over the Portable HardDrive, and he did so the next day, on January 28, 2011.

19. Before turning over the Portable Hard Drive to Plaintiffs, however, Broadbentconnected that hard drive to another laptop computer (the Home Computer) one that was not

owned or issued by Plaintiffs and that Broadbent was and is using to perform Competitive Work

for the New Venture and copied certain of Plaintiffs confidential information from the

Portable Hard Drive onto the Home Computer. Broadbent did not seek or receive permission to

download any files to the Home Computer or to retain them in any place or in any form and

he kept his downloading and possession of this electronic information secret from Plaintiffs.

20. Over one week later, and only after Plaintiffs pressed Broadbent for arepresentation that he no longer possessed any of Plaintiffs written or electronic confidential

information, Broadbent admitted that, before turning over the Portable Hard Drive, he had

connected that drive to the Home Computer and had downloaded certain of Plaintiffs

confidential information from the Portable Hard Drive onto the Home Computer. Broadbents

admission occurred only after Plaintiffs insisted the representation be included in a consulting

agreement that Broadbent proposed and sought to negotiate with -Plaintiffs in order to earn

consulting fees in exchange for helping transition his research and development work to other



8/35

-8-

Mile High employees. Negotiations regarding that consulting agreement failed and the

agreement was never executed.

21. Broadbents lack of authorization to engage in the conduct described above isreflected, for example, in various documents signed by him, including the following:

22. On August 21, 2001, Broadbent and Mile High (then known as Mile HighEquipment Company) executed a Confidentiality Agreement (the 2001 Confidentiality

Agreement) in which Broadbent agreed not to communicate or disclose any of Mile Highs

confidential information and not to utilize or make available any such knowledge or

information, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the soliciting of or acceptance of

employment with any competitor of the company. A copy of the 2001 Confidentiality

Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

(a) On July 30, 2002, Broad and Mile High executed a Non-Disclosure/Confidentiality Agreement for Mile High Equipment Company Employees (the

2002 Confidentiality Agreement) in which Broadbent agreed, among other things:

(i) not to disclose or to use trade secrets for as long as theyare protected by the law and not to disclose or to use confidentialinformation for a period of two years after his departure from Mile High;

(ii) to deliver to Mile High upon termination of hisemployment all records, notes, files, manuals, drawings, plans and likeitems as well as all copies thereof relating to, containing, ordisclosing any inventions, confidential information or trade secrets of MileHigh; and

(iii) not to directly or indirectly engage in any activity thatwould conflict with his obligations to, or compete with the business of,Mile High, including the planning, preparation or establishment of acompeting business.

A copy of the 2002 Confidentiality Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit D.



9/35

-9-

(b) On one or more occasions, including February 20, 2008, Broadbent signedan Acknowledgement (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E) affirming and

representing that he had received, understood, and intended to comply with Mile Highs

Company Guidelines (portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit F) that, among other

things, required protection of confidential information; prohibited theft of company property,

removal of company property from company premises and the unauthorized disclosure of Mile

Highs confidential information; and required employees to return to Mile High all company

files and other property prior to their departure. (See, e.g., Exh. F at pp. 7, 8, 11, and 26 of

Company Guidelines)

23. In addition to contracting and agreeing not to use or disseminate Mile Highsconfidential information and to return all such information to Mile High prior to his departure,

Broadbent went further. On January 10, 2011, Broadbent executed a Departing Employee

Acknowledgment in which he specifically represented that he had returned all company

documents and materials in his possession, had not retained any copies, in either paper or

electronic form, and had turned over all portable electronic data storage devices (including

disks, thumb drives, flash drives, back-up drives, etc.) that [he had] used in connection with [his]

Company-issued computer. A copy of this Acknowledgement is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

24. Broadbents representations in January of 2011 were false statements of materialfact and Broadbent knew they were false when he made them. Broadbents failure to inform

Plaintiffs that he had downloaded their confidential information, and was retaining that

information, for use after his resignation constitutes an omission of material fact. Broadbent

made these material misrepresentations and omissions to deceive Plaintiffs and induce them not



10/35

-10-

to seek return of the files and information that Broadbent had improperly obtained and thereby to

secretly retain possession of Plaintiffs confidential information for Competitive Work.

25. Thus, Broadbents conduct described above was undertaken with the intent todefraud and did, in fact, further the fraud.

26. The damage suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of Broadbents conduct includes theimpairment of the integrity of Plaintiffs data and information, the Company Computer, and the

Company Systems, as well as impairment of the availability of the unauthorized copies of

Plaintiffs confidential information to Plaintiffs. Once Broadbent downloaded the electronic files

containing Plaintiffs confidential information onto the Portable Hard Drive, the security and

integrity of those files and the Company Systems and Company Computer was breached, those

files were thrust outside of Plaintiffs control and protection, and the integrity of Plaintiffs

computer, computer system, files and information was impaired. A vivid illustration of this

impairment is the ease with which Broadbent transmitted Plaintiffs information to his Home

Computer. Plaintiffs investigation into Broadbents conduct, and the damage caused thereby is

continuing.

27. By engaging in the conduct described above, Broadbent knowingly, intentionally,and without authorization or in excess of his authorization:

(a) accessed the Company Computer and thereby obtained information, inviolation of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C);

(b) with intent to defraud, accessed the Company Computer and therebyfurthered the intended fraud and obtained something of value, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

1030(a)(4);



11/35

-11-

(c) transmitted a program, information, code, or command, and as a resultof such conduct caused damage, as described above, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

1030(a)(5)(A); and

(d) accessed the Company Computer, and as a result of such conduct causedloss and damage, as described above, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5)(A) and (a)(5)(C).

28. Plaintiffs are authorized to maintain this civil action pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1030(g), because the conduct described above resulted in a loss to Plaintiffs totaling more

than five thousand dollars ($5,000), including without limitation the cost of responding to,

and conducting a damage assessment of, Broadbents conduct. For example, Plaintiffs have

incurred the cost of a third-party forensic analysis of the Company Laptop and the Portable

Hard Drive that was performed to investigate and uncover the nature, extent and impact of

Broadbents unauthorized conduct, for which Plaintiffs have paid well over five thousand

dollars ($5,000).

COUNT II BREACH OF CONTRACT


30. Mile High was converted from a Colorado corporation to a Colorado limitedliability company on September 30, 2006 in accordance with the Colorado Corporations and

Associations Act, Col. Rev. Stat. Ann. 7-90-101 et seq. Pursuant to Col. Rev. Stat. 7-90-202,



12/35

-12-

therefore, Mile High is the same entity that entered into both the 2001 Confidentiality Agreement

and the 2002 Confidentiality Agreement as Mile High Equipment Company.

31. The 2001 Confidentiality Agreement and the 2002 Confidentiality Agreement arevalid and binding contracts with Mile High. Mile High has fully complied with any and all

obligations under those contracts.

32. Broadbent has breached his contractual obligations by engaging in the conductdescribed above by, for example, copying and downloading electronic files containing Plaintiffs

confidential information in the days prior to his resignation, for the purpose of retaining that

information for post-employment Competitive Work, and by in fact retaining that information

for such use.

33. As a direct and proximate result of Broadbents breaches of contract, Plaintiffshave suffered and will continue to suffer great injury and damage, in an amount to be proven at

trial.

COUNT III BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND DUTY OF LOYALTY

34. Plaintiffs incorporate and restate paragraphs 1 through and 32 as if fully set forthherein.

35. As a key executive of Plaintiffs entrusted with confidential information,Broadbent owed Plaintiffs a fiduciary duty as well as duties of confidentiality and loyalty.

36. Broadbents conduct described above, including his improper acquisition ofPlaintiffs electronic files and his misrepresentations and fraudulent omissions to Plaintiffs,



13/35

-13-

violated his duties, and is the proximate cause of great injury, damage, and detriment to

Plaintiffs.

COUNT IV MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS


38. The files that Broadbent downloaded onto the Portable Hard Drive from theCompany Laptop and the Company Systems included, among others, research and development

information, designs, drawings, specifications, manufacturing information, product quality

information, profitability data and analyses, and business plans and strategies, all of which

information is not known to the public or to Plaintiffs competitors and all of which would be

useful and valuable to Plaintiffs competitors by, for example, enabling those competitors to

avoid research and development costs, know about and anticipate Plaintiffs new product plans

and other strategies, and to more effectively respond to those plans and strategies, and to more

successfully compete with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have spent substantial sums developing this

information, and competitive use of that information would yield an unfair advantage in the

marketplace that would result in millions of dollars of sales gained or lost.

39. Plaintiffs have taken reasonable measures to protect the secrecy of theirconfidential information, including but not limited to the following:

(a) facilities are secured with locks, electronic keypads, alarm systems andsecurity cameras;



14/35

-14-

(b) the reception area is staffed by a receptionist who monitors and logs allvisitors;

(c) facilities are locked before and after business hours, and during businesshours, no visitors are allowed beyond the reception area unless authorized by an employee;

(d) employees have access to both paper and electronic documents only on aneed to know basis;

(e) Company Systems are pass code protected and access to CompanySystems is segmented and allowed only on a need to access basis;

(f) shredders are located on site and used to dispose of sensitive paperdocuments;

(g) key employees must acknowledge their notification of, and agreement to,the Plaintiffs strict non-disclosure and return-of-property requirements, for example, as

embodied in the agreements attached as Exhibits C and D hereto;

(h) employees are required to acknowledge their notification of, andagreement to, Company Guidelines, portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit F, and

which require both confidentiality as well as return of all company files and property upon

departure; and

(i)

Plaintiffs hold exit interviews of their departing employees in which

Plaintiffs confirm the return of all company records and other property.



15/35

-15-

40. The information contained in the files downloaded by Broadbent onto thePortable Hard Drive therefore include Trade Secrets under Colorado law, as embodied in the

Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 7-74-101 et seq., in

that the information is scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula,

improvement, confidential business or financial information, listing of names, addresses, or

telephone numbers, or other information relating to [Plaintiffs] business or profession which is

secret and of value and Plaintiffs have taken measures to prevent the secret from becoming

available to persons other than those selected by [them] to have access thereto for limited

purposes.

41. Broadbents conduct described above (including but not limited to Broadbentsuse of deception and breach of his duties of confidentiality and loyalty to obtain and retain

control over the downloaded files for the purpose of retaining those files after the termination of

his employment for the purpose of Competitive Work; his refusal to return those files to

Plaintiffs despite his contractual obligation, and plaintiffs demand, that he do so; and his

disseminating those files to the hard drive of the Home Computer) constitute misappropriation of

trade secrets in violation of the CUTSA. Moreover, his conduct, especially in light of the

important confidential information possessed by Broadbent, and in light of his demonstrated

disregard for the integrity and rightful ownership of that information, makes it clear that

continued and future misappropriation of Plaintiffs confidential information is also threatened.

42. Broadbents violations of the CUTSA described above have been and will be theproximate cause of substantial injury, damage, and detriment to Plaintiffs.



16/35

-16-

43. Some, if not most, of the injury and damage suffered by Plaintiffs is and will beirreparable. For example, the New Venture that Broadbent has joined as chief technology

officer, and for which he uses the Home Computer, develops ideas and technology for improving

ice machines and markets those ideas and technologies to ice machine equipment manufacturers

that compete with Plaintiffs. By not immediately disclosing to Plaintiffs his decision to go to

work for the New Venture and instead keeping that plan secret and remaining in his position with

Plaintiffs, Broadbent was able to obtain and retain possession of Plaintiffs confidential

information and to engage in the improper computer fraud and abuse and deception described

above.

44. Broadbent is now working for the New Venture and engaged in the design anddevelopment of ice machine equipment improvements and marketing those improvements to

competitors of Plaintiffs. And Broadbent has downloaded and has retained on his Home

Computer, the very same computer that he is using to perform Competitive Work electronic

files containing Plaintiffs confidential information that he copied from his Company Laptop and

the Company Systems onto the Portable Hard Drive.

45. Plaintiffs have demanded that Broadbent turn over the Home Computer forinspection to allow Plaintiffs to verify that their confidential files and information have been

removed and that he sign a statement confirming that he owns the Home Computer and consents

to that inspection under procedures acceptable to Plaintiffs and, most importantly, describing his

handling of the Plaintiffs confidential files and information and assuring Plaintiffs that their files

and information are not at risk of further dissemination.



17/35

-17-

46. While Broadbent claims the only files and information of Plaintiffs that he copiedfrom the Portable Hard Drive to the Home Computer concerned a single, discrete research and

development project on which he had been working for Plaintiffs before his resignation and that

all such files and information now have been removed from the Home Computer, Plaintiffs have

been unable to secure the inspection of the Home Computer or the signed statement described

above, despite repeated efforts to work with Broadbent to obtain them. Consequently, without

the ability to obtain sworn deposition testimony and other discovery through this lawsuit,

Plaintiffs cannot determine the full extent to which its confidential files and information may

have been misappropriated and disseminated as a result of Broadbents conduct and the measures

necessary to address the situation.

47. Plaintiffs will, absent the equitable intervention of this Court, suffer irreparableinjury for which it has no adequate remedy at law because, for example, their valuable

confidential information is being and will continue to be held and disseminated by someone not

authorized to hold or disseminate it. The confidential information would be valuable if used

against Plaintiffs in the marketplace, and their business relationships with others will be

irreparably damaged. Once used by or disclosed to a competitor, the value of the confidential

property may be reduced or even lost forever, and Plaintiffs would suffer lasting and irreparable

effects from the unfair competition that would result from improper use and disclosure of such

confidential information.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs Scotsman Industries, Inc. and Mile High Equipment LLC

request the following relief:



18/35

-18-

1. Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief:

(a) requiring Broadbent to immediately return to Plaintiffs all documents and

files (whether in paper or electronic form) belonging to Plaintiffs, including but not limited to

those copied, in whole or in part, from the Company Computer, the Company Systems or the

Portable Hard Drive (the Copied Files);

(b) requiring Broadbent to immediately produce each of the following for

inspection and removal of all Copied Files: the Home Computer and all other storage media and

devices, including but not limited to computers, hard drives, disks, flash drives, thumb drives,

back-up drives and memory sticks, that were used to access, store, transfer, disseminate,

download, copy, or transmit any of Plaintiffs files or information, including the Copied Files;

(c) enjoining the possession, use and disclosure of any of Plaintiffs files or

information, including the Copied Files; and

(d) containing other provisions sufficient to give Plaintiffs the benefit of the

bargain contained in the agreements and acknowledgements executed by Broadbent and to

protect Plaintiffs confidential information from future and continued unauthorized use,

dissemination and disclosure; and

2. Damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for all of their compensable injuries;

3. Broadbents unjust enrichment and disgorgement of all benefits in an amount to

be proven at trial;

4. Compensation and reimbursement for all expenditures reasonably and necessarily

incurred by Plaintiffs to respond to Broadbents conduct, including to investigate and determine

the nature, extent and impact of that conduct and to determine which files were improperly



19/35

-19-

downloaded, accessed and/or transmitted by Broadbent, and to what extent Plaintiffs

information, computers, and computer systems were misused, altered, damaged, or deleted by

Broadbent;

5. Pre-judgment interest;

6. Attorneys fees and costs;

7. An accounting and a constructive trust as to all funds, property and other benefits

received by Broadbent as a result of his wrongdoing;

8. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial; and

9. Such other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Plaintiffs hereby request trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: July 8, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nina Y. Wang____________________Nina Y. WangFAEGRE & BENSON LLP3200 Wells Fargo Center1700 Lincoln StreetDenver, Colorado 80203-4532Telephone: (303) 607-3500Facsimile: (303) 607-3600

Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Scotsman Industries, Inc.and Mile High Equipment LLC



20/35

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:11-cv-01793-JLK Document 1-1 Filed 07/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2


21/35



22/35

EXHIBIT B



23/35



24/35

EXHIBIT C



25/35



26/35



27/35



28/35

EXHIBIT D



29/35



30/35



31/35



32/35



33/35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-CV-01793-JLK- KLM

SCOTSMAN INDUSTRIES, INC.; and

MILE HIGH EQUIPMENT, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN A. BROADBENT,

Defendant.

DEFENDANTS SECOND UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF

TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE AGAINST OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS

COMPLAINT

AND

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1E AND

D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A

Defendant John A. Broadbent (Defendant), through his attorneys, Bohn Aguilar, LLC,

respectfully moves this Court for a twenty (20) day enlargement of time to and including

October 3, 2011, within which to answer, move against or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs

Complaint. Although uncontested, Defendant states the following in support of this motion:

1. By Order dated August 10, 2011, Defendant was granted a first enlargement of

time to and including September 12, 2011, within which to answer, move against, or otherwise

respond to Plaintiffs Complaint. The parties continue to discuss various matters in controversy

between them, and the requested additional time may assist them in reaching a resolution as to

some or all of those matters.



34/35

2

2. Plaintiffs stipulate to the relief requested herein so long as Defendant agrees not

to use this extension (or the fact that no response to the complaint is on file) to oppose or support

any motion that might be filed by either party.

3. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A, undersigned counsel conferred with

Plaintiffs counsel, Linda Stevens, by email dated September 8, 2011, before filing this motion.

Plaintiffs counsel stipulated to the enlargement of time requested herein subject to the condition

above.

4. This enlargement of time will not unduly delay these proceedings or unfairly

prejudice any party. Only one other extension has been requested to respond to Plaintiffs

Complaint.

5. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1E, a copy of this motion is being served upon

Defendant John Broadbent.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests an enlargement of time to and including

October 3, 2011, within which to answer, move against or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs

Complaint. A proposed form of order is filed herewith.

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of September 2011.

BOHN AGUILAR, LLC

By: s/ Michael G. Bohn

Michael G. Bohn

1670 Broadway, Suite 3000

Denver, Colorado 80202Phone: (303) 832-2494

Email: [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

JOHN A. BROADBENT



35/35

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 9th day of September 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing

DEFENDANTS SECOND UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF

TIME TO ANSWER, MOVE AGAINST OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS

COMPLAINTAND CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1E

AND D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will

send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:

Linda K. Stevens

Kevin J. Byrne

SCHIFF HARDIN LLP

233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 6600

Chicago, IL 60606

[email protected]

[email protected]

Nina Wang

FAEGRE & BENSON LLP

1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3200

Denver, Colorado 80203

[email protected]

John A. Broadbent

[email protected]

s/Michael G. Bohn

Michael G. Bohn


scotsman sues john broadbent federal 2011

Documents