1. That motion was filed on Friday, January 21, 2000, without prior service under Rule 9A. This opposition is being filed directly as a result.

2. That letter carried a "cc" to Michael Rosen, the attorney from Foley, Hoag and Eliot who has represented the defendants throughout, including at last Tuesday's hearing on the plaintiff's summary judgment motion. He is also the attorney who submitted the request that the case be dismissed without prejudice.

3. There was no suggestion of undisclosed facts. Instead, there was an exhaustive timeline and documents posted. along with an explicit disclaimer on every page that this was opinion. The counterclaimants ignore the facts and focus on the opinions.

4. See Exhibits X and Y in the Supporting Exhibits compilation, including a letter from defendants' counsel frankly calling the $50,000 per violation in the demanded confidentiality agreement "a penalty," and agreeing that Silverstein "honestly believed" what he was saying.

5. TLC was merged into Mattel last summer, and is now merely a division of Mattel, rather than being a separate company.

6. The plaintiff included the untimely opposition in his Rule 9A package, although he might have been within his rights to have treated the extension of time as fraudulently-obtained and thus invalid.

7. The summary judgment opposition attempts to distort an e-mail to suggest that William Silverstein only had three days of treatment--which was accomplished by omitting half of that e-mail that detailed the same two-week course of treatment as Silverstein had testified to (the entire e-mail is attached as Exhibit 2) and by assigning an unjustifiable inference to what they quoted. However, whether Silverstein had three days or two weeks of treatment at the hospital after he was fired by MSI is immaterial to the complained of statement that he was fired "for going to the hospital." (They do not deny but in fact allege in their counterclaim, at ¶ 5, that he was fired for this "unauthorized leave of absence." The firing took place three days after he left for treatment, on the day after he arrived in China.) Their quibble over the length of his treatment only highlights that they have nothing to show in support of their claim.

8. Unlike present counsel, who is handling this as the windup of a contingency fee case, later counsel elsewhere would have to charge him hourly, which could consume a large portion of his recovery on his claim in chief.