Dmarcian, Inc. v. DMARC Advisor BV

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CASE NO.: 1:21-CV-00067
DMARCIAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DMARC ADVISOR BV,
f/k/a dmarcian Europe BV,
Defendant.
LETTER OF REQUEST FOR ORAL
EXAMINATION OF
HERWERT KALKMAN
REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT
TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING
OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS
A Request is hereby made by the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, 200 U.S. Courthouse Building, 100 Otis
Street, 	Asheville, 	NC 	28801, 	UNITED 	STATES 	OF AMERICA, 	to 	the
Ministry of Justice, for assistance in obtaining testimony needed for an
upcoming 	trial 	in 	the 	above-captioned 	action. 	This 	request 	is 	made
pursuant to Chapters I and III of the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970
on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (the
“Hague Convention”).
Case 1:21-cv-00067-MR Document 350 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 9

2
1. Requesting Judicial
Authority
Honorable Martin Reidinger
United States Chief District Judge
United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina
200 U.S. Courthouse Building
100 Otis Street
Asheville, NC 28801
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
2. Central Authority of the
Requested State
De Officier van Justice
Arrondissenmentsparket Den Haag
Afdeling executie, t.a.v. Ms. J. Booister
Postbus 20302
2500 EH Den Haag
The Netherlands
3. Person to whom the
executed request is to be
returned
Pamela Duffy
Ellis & Winters LLP
300 N. Greene Street
Suite 800
Greensboro, NC 27401
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
David Dorey, DE #5283
Blank Rome, LLP
David.dorey@BlankRome.com
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 425-6418
Plaintiff’s Dutch Counsel:
Timo Jansen and Mukesh Hoeba
Lexence
Postbus 75999
1070 AZ Amsterdam
4. Specification of date by
which requesting authority
requires receipt of response
to the Letter of Request
The requesting authority would greatly
appreciate a response to the Request
by July 1, 2024.
Case 1:21-cv-00067-MR Document 350 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 9

3
Reason for urgency 	Oral examination of Herwert Kalkman
needed to obtain necessary evidence
in preparation for trial set for
September 3, 2024.
In conformity with Article 3 of the Hague Convention, the undersigned
applicant has the honor to submit the following Request:
5. (a) Requesting authority 	United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina
200 U.S. Courthouse Building
100 Otis Street
Asheville, NC 28801
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(b) To the Competent
Authority of
The Netherlands
(c) Name of the case and
identifying number
dmarcian, Inc. v. DMARC Advisor, BV,
f/k/a dmarcian Europe BV, Case No.: 1-
21-CV-00067
6. (a) Plaintiff 	dmarcian, Inc.
Name and address of
Plaintiff’s representatives
Pamela Duffy
Tyler Jameson
Ellis & Winters LLP
300 N. Greene Street
Suite 800
Greensboro, NC 27401
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
David Dorey
Blank Rome, LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(b) Defendant 	DMARC Advisor, BV f/k/a dmarcian
Europe BV
Name and address of
Defendant’s representatives
Pressly M. Millen
Samuel B. Hartzell
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
PO Box 831
Raleigh, NC 27602
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case 1:21-cv-00067-MR Document 350 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 9

4
7. (a) Nature of the
proceedings
Copyright and trademark infringement,
theft of trade secrets, breach of
contract
(b) Summary of Complaint 	This civil action was brought to recover
for damages that Plaintiff contends it
suffered through Defendant’s alleged
theft of several types of intellectual
property protected by United States
law, including among others copyright
law, trademark law, and trade secrets
(collectively “IP”). Plaintiff is a software
company that helps users authenticate
incoming emails through the Domain-
based Message Authentication
Reporting and Conformance (DMARC)
protocol. Defendant contracted with
Plaintiff to engage in a cooperative joint
business which included authorization
to use Plaintiff’s IP.
In or about early 2021, Defendant
began to use Plaintiff’s IP outside of the
cooperative relationship without
authority of Plaintiff and Defendant
further asserted its own alleged
intellectual property rights in the IP.
Plaintiff asserts, among other things,
that Defendant’s conduct was a breach
of the parties’ agreements.
8. (a) Evidence to be Obtained 	The evidence sought to be obtained is
the oral testimony of Herwert Kalkman.
(b) Purpose of the Evidence 	The testimony of Herwert Kalkman is
relevant to the issues in dispute and
needed for the impending trial
scheduled to begin in September of
2024.
9. Identity and address of the
person to be examined
Herwert Kalkman
Tijpport 31
3312 WB Dordrecht
The Netherlands
Case 1:21-cv-00067-MR Document 350 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 9

5
10. Statement of subject
matter about which Mr.
Kalkman is to be
examined
See attached Exhibit A
11. Special methods or
procedure to be followed.
In the interests of justice to enable this
Court to determine the issues pending
before it, it is requested that you please
cause and compel the deposition of
Herwert Kalkman under oath to testify
truthfully, that counsel for both sides be
given the opportunity to question the
witness, and that a verbatim transcript
be prepared.
It is further requested that the
deposition take place by video at a time
to be agreed upon by the attorneys of
record in the above-identified matter
and Mr. Kalkman, provided that the
deposition take place no later than July
31, 2024.
It is further requested that any certified
record of the deposition be sent to:
Pamela S. Duffy and David Dorey
12. Request for notification of
the time and place for the
execution of the Request
and identity and address
of any person to be
notified.
This Court respectfully requests that
you notify this court; the
representatives of the parties identified
above; and the witness from whom
evidence is requested as indicated
above; and such other persons as you
deem proper.
13. Request for attendance or
participation of judicial
personnel of the requesting
authority at the execution of
the Letter of Request
No judicial personnel of the requesting
authority will attend or participate.
Case 1:21-cv-00067-MR Document 350 Filed 04/19/24 Page 5 of 9

6
14. Specification of privilege or
duty to refuse to give
evidence under the law of
the Requesting State
Neither this Request, nor the deposition
to take place pursuant to this Request
shall constitute or operate as a waiver
of any argument, position, objection,
allegation, claim, or defense, of any
party in the above-captioned action, or
the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, or any other
privileges, rights, protections, or
prohibitions that may apply to that
evidence under the laws of the
Netherlands, the United States, or any
State within the United States.
15. The fees and costs
incurred which are
reimbursable under the
second paragraph of Article
14 or under Article 26 of the
Convention will be borne
by:
Subject to any later order of the Court
which may be entered in connection
with shifting costs, all costs of the
Hague Convention proceeding for
procedural costs associated with the
depositions requested will be borne by
Plaintiff dmarcian, Inc., provided that
each party will be responsible for the
fees and expenses, if any, of its own
attorneys relating to any Hague
Convention proceedings with respect to
the deposition sought in this Letter of
Request.
Case 1:21-cv-00067-MR Document 350 Filed 04/19/24 Page 6 of 9

7
This Court expresses its appreciation of the Ministry of Justice for its
courtesy and assistance in this matter and states that it shall be ready and
willing to assist the Ministry of Justice in a similar manner when required.
Asheville, North Carolina, United States of America
Signed: April 19 th
, 2024
Case 1:21-cv-00067-MR Document 350 Filed 04/19/24 Page 7 of 9

8
Exhibit A: Topics of Oral Examination
Plaintiff respectfully requests to ask Mr. Kalkman questions regarding
the following topics and requests an opportunity to ask follow-up questions
as may be required by Mr. Kalkman’s responses:
A. Mr. Kalkman’s qualifications and training in software code
development and knowledge of specific coding languages.
B. The circumstances and events that led to Mr. Kalkman working with
the parties on code development.
C. Mr. Kalkman’s work on code development during the period of
cooperation between Plaintiff and Defendant, including but not limited
to work on “DMARC Delegation” features and direction Mr. Kalkman
provided to the Bulgarian development team.
D. Payments Mr. Kalkman received from Measuremail while contributing
to Plaintiff’s source code during the period of cooperation between
Plaintiff and Defendant.
E. The events and circumstances surrounding Mr. Kalkman being
removed from the parties’ software development process and then
subsequently rejoining in January 2020.
Case 1:21-cv-00067-MR Document 350 Filed 04/19/24 Page 8 of 9

9
F. Mr. Kalkman’s work on code development for Defendant, including
but not limited to code development for the “DMARC Manager”
platform.
G. Any and all contributions to code Mr. Kalkman has provided
Defendant through Sportadventurie.nl B.V.
H. Any and all IP assignments from Mr. Kalkman, whether individually or
through Sportadventurie.nl, to Defendant.
I. 	Mr. Kalkman’s knowledge of the dispute between Plaintiff and
Defendant, including but not limited to information Mr. Kalkman
obtained in his role as a part owner of The Digital Xpedition (TDX)
Holding BV and/or as an indirect director of Defendant.
J. All communications with Hub Harmeling related to Mr. Harmeling’s
role as independent director of Defendant.
K. Mr. Kalkman’s knowledge of and/or participation in Defendant’s
actions in violation of the Preliminary Injunction which led to issuance
of contempt orders.
Case 1:21-cv-00067-MR Document 350 Filed 04/19/24 Page 9 of 9