Before Discovery: The Letter That Ended My Lawsuit

---

The following documents are presented to provide context before the release of the accompanying videos.

In August 2024, before any discovery had taken place, counsel for Invited and several individual defendants sent a letter outlining why they believed my claims would fail. At that point, no depositions had been conducted, no documents had been produced, no interrogatories had been answered, and no meaningful factual investigation had occurred through the litigation process. Nevertheless, the letter discussed attorney's fees, arbitration, jurisdictional challenges, and potential defamation exposure.

At the time, I viewed the communication as an attempt to discourage further litigation. Faced with the prospect of substantial legal expense and the positions being advanced, I made the decision to voluntarily withdraw the lawsuit rather than continue down that path.

The documents have been redacted in limited respects. Certain names have been removed because I am legally prohibited from identifying those individuals publicly. In addition, the quotations that appeared in the original letter have been redacted. Those quotations were taken from a separate communication that had been marked "CONFIDENTIAL" and sent to Invited CEO David Pillsbury. Whether that confidentiality designation was ultimately enforceable or not is a matter others can debate. However, the quotations appeared in this communication and later surfaced in other proceedings, including litigation involving Mamee Groves. For that reason, I have chosen not to republish the quoted material here.

Also included is a subsequent communication from Ogletree Deakins in which counsel indicated that if I chose to "take the story to the media," then "so be it." I am including that communication because I believe it is relevant to understanding the context surrounding my decision to eventually speak publicly.

The four videos that follow contain excerpts from sworn court proceedings together with my commentary regarding the claims, defenses, and representations that were made. In my opinion, these materials demonstrate that the attorneys involved did not fully understand the nature of what I was alleging, the factual basis for those allegations, or the broader history that led to the litigation. I further believe the company either failed to provide them with sufficient information or provided them with an incomplete understanding of the underlying facts.

Readers and viewers are encouraged to review the documents, watch the videos, and draw their own conclusions.

One additional point of note: Jonathan Wilson, the primary author of these communications on behalf of Ogletree Deakins, was no longer employed by the firm shortly after these communications were sent. I do not know the circumstances of his departure and draw no conclusions from it, but I note it here as part of the chronology.