Free Response to Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 156

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger Case No. 04-cv-1225-MSK-BNB (Consolidated with 04-cv-1226-MSK-BNB)

MALIK M. HASAN, M.D., an individual; and SEEME G. HASAN, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. GOLDMAN SACHS 1998 EXCHANGE PLACE FUND, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; GOLDMAN SACHS 1999 EXCHANGE PLACE FUND, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; GOLDMAN SACHS MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; GOLDMAN SACHS MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., a New York limited partnership; JOHN DOES 1-100, individual persons whose true identities are unknown; and LENDER PARTIES 1-100, business entities whose true identities are unknown, Defendants. T EN ME D F N A T ' E P N ET P A N IF ' T O F RO D R H A D E E D N S R S O S O L I T F S MO I N O R E BARRING USE OF TRANSCRIPT OF EXAMINATION OF MALIK M. HASAN

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Pa tf " t nfr re B rn U eo Tasr t f ln f ' Mo o o O dr a i s f r c p o Examination of Malik M. i is i rg n i H sn ( o. o14 ( e Mo o" rh "upes n t n)sr o u. aa" D cN .4)t " t n o t S pr i Mo o" ifvl s h i e so i i o D . aa' dpsi t t oycntu s( i ete )am s oso apr r H sns eoio e i n ost e i t n r y d i i t n sm i t n s it s n f ay t opponent routinely admissible as nonhearsay under FRE 801(d)(2), or usable as impeachment testimony under FRE 613(b). For this reason alone, the deposition transcript may be offered or

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 156

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 2 of 13

ue a ta adp i is Mo o m s b dn d T eMo o m s b dn dfr nt r sd tr l n ln f ' t n ut e ei . h i, a tf i e t n ut e ei o ao e i e h, independent reason: the fundamental premise of the Motion ­i.e., t t ln f ' one w s h p i is cusl a a a tf somehow deprived of the ability to cross-examine his own client, because Named Defendants used up the full seven-hour limit ­ misreads the Rule on which plaintiffs purport to rely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2) imposes a presumptive seven-hour limit on the party taking a deposition; crossea i t nb t dpnn s w cusls ps b gon fr xm n i y h eoet o n oneia os l rud o extending the seven hours, ao e ' ie not contracting them. Moreover, as detailed in an email exchange annexed as Exhibit A, the pre hdpei s ar dt th N m dD f dn ' xm nt no D . a i a r o l ge h t a e e nat ea i i f rHasan could go ts v uy e a e e s ao well beyond seven hours, thereby rendering Rule 30(d)(2) inapplicable. T lnl p i iscen at ry frec d g a ta D .H snsdpsition ei y ln f i o u oi o xl i t r l r aa' eo l g , a tf t h t un i testimony based on a claimed lack of opportunity for cross-examination. Indeed, the rules cited above and pertinent authorities directly refute the claimed basis for exclusion. I ayeetp i is ca et thyw r sm hw dpi do a opportunity to n n vn ln f ' hr h t , a tf g a e e o eo er e f n e v cross-examine Dr. Hasan is patently false. The Named Defendants concluded their questioning of Dr. Hasan by 3:00 p.m. on the day in question. All parties and counsel were available at that time to continue with any cross-examination. No party ­not even Dr. Hasan ­claimed any inability to proceed with cross-examination because of travel plans, illness, or prior conflict. As we show in Exhibit A below, the parties agreed in advance that questioning of Dr. Hasan could last until late in the evening of the second day (well beyond seven hours). Thus, D . aa' rH sns cusl s t r sn o r ui t poed( e lgd i e a o t "ee-hu rl )s one s te e o fre s g o rce t aee t br fh svn oru " i ' ad a f n h l m e e d i euu. I t t h cusl i nt atoae p t m nf t e" hb it n in nos n r h i one d o w n t tm to aua u r aiti " sg u, s d t c r e lao without an extended break that would afford him time to prepare his client ­because of the 2

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 156

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 3 of 13

cni r l rkt th e ot ol f l n m k D . aa' t t oi am s os vn os e b i h t f rw u a ad ae rH sns e i n l d i i ee dae s a e f d i sm a sn w r .C usl t taco es o a rud o br consideration of pretrial admissions os one sa i lhi int gon fr a ing e ' cc c r made under oath.1 Considering the absence of any factual or legal basis for the Motion, it is evident that this Motion was in fact made for an improper purpose: to suppress and keep from the Court admissions by Dr. Hasan that completely negate (as a matter of law, as well as fact) his basic claim at trial ­ that he did not know he was signing a subscription agreement that bound him i.e., to arbitrate in New York. The deposition transcript also is filled with Dr. H snseati s f aa'r n t n o c ao much of his testimony at the hearing before the Court on March 8, 2005, as well as other matters that totally undermine his credibility. At the June 1 ha n,h C ut cnwegdp i is Mo o, suggested that the 6 er g t orako l e ln f ' t n i e d a tf i Motion did not seem to have any legitimate basis, and commented that the testimony of Dr. Hasan is admissible at trial as admissions. After the hearing, plaintiffs declined the Named D f dn ' e nat invitation to withdraw the Motion (Exhibit D), necessitating this response. Because e s p i is S pr s n Mo o i l ayad f t l fvl s i m d fra i poe ln f ' upe i a tf so t n s e l n a u l r o u, s ae o n m rpr i gl c ay i o purpose, adhs enm i a e nti s ni t s df tadt C ut osraos t n a be a tnd o t t d g h e e c n h ors be t n a ni w ha n e es e ' vi the June 16 hearing, the Court should deny the Motion and also award the Named Defendants t iaony'es n cs i r pni t t Mo o,ne FdR CvP R l 2( ad h rt resf ad ot n e od go h e t e s s n e t nudr e. . i . u s 6c n i . e ) 37(a)(4).

1

Ide, sp i is cusl e ko s cusl o apr t i l de nt naei et s ec s ned a ln f ' one w l nw , one fr a y y c l os o egg n x ni r s a tf l t p ay e v oexamination at the conclusion of that part sdpsinb a opnn bcuet pr bi dpsdwl y eoio y n poet eas h a y e g eoe i ' t e t n l ultimately testify at trial on direct examination.

3

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 156

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 4 of 13

I.

D . A A ' D P ST O T S I N I A MISB E R H S N S E O I I N E T MO Y S D S I L UNDER FRE 801(d)(2) AND USABLE FOR IMPEACHMENT UNDER FRE 613(b).

D . aa' dpsi t t oyi am s b a nner yam s oso apr r H sns eoio e i n s d i i e s oha a d i i t n sm sl s s n f ay t opponent. FRE 801(d)(2) (a statement is not hearsay if it is offered against a party and is the pr 'o n te et L g aypr am s os r always admissible, even if there was no a ys w s t n . oi l , a y d i i a t am ) cl t sn e opportunity for cross-examination. 30B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure §71 (de. up 20)" 05 2 d S p. 05 ( Rule 801(d)(2) exempts admissions of a party-opponent from the operation of the rule against hearsay, Rule 802, by defining admissions of a party-opnn a `o ha a' L c o opr n yt c s poet s nt er y. ak f pot i o r s s ut o -examine is deprived of significance by the incongruity of the party objecting to his own statement on the ground that he was not subject to cross-examination by himself at the time." ) . T u,or ru nlr et pr 'e ott br s o h pi am s os eas o hscut ot e e ca a ys f r o a ue f i r r d i i bcue f s i y j t f s s o sn a claimed lack of cross-examination. E.g., Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Jensen, 667 F.2d 714, 722 (t Cr18) "o s t et o apr t b am s b ,hr i n r u e ethyb 8 i 91 ( r t e n f a y o e d i i e t e s o e i m n t h . F am s t sl e qr e e subject to cross-ea i t n th t e ae )Lang v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., xm n i at i m d.; ao em " 582 F. Supp. 1421 12 (.... 94 ( ln f. . at cni r l t e ru gt t , 43 SDNY 18)" a tf . w s s os e b i a i h P ii e dae m gn a the Court should not consider his deposition at this stage because his attorney has not been afforded an opportunity for cross examination. That argument is utterly without merit. Because the deposition on which defendant seeks to rely is that of plaintiff himself, [plaintiff] is uniquely qaf d o i vway fh s t etdf dn hs um td ) F rh sm r sn,h uli t d ao n o t te n e nat a sb ie.. o t a e e ost ie s e am s e t " e a e statements may be offered for impeachment purposes, if not offered substantively as admissions as well, under FRE 613(b). 4

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 156

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 5 of 13

T eC ut dr sdp i is peet t na t Jn 1 pe h orade e ln f ' r n Mo o th ue 6 r s a tf s i e -trial conference. In r pnet t C ut pi e i u y p i is cusl nqi cl cni e t t Dr. e os o h ors o t n i , ln f ' one ueu oay ofm d h s e ' n d q r a tf v l r a Hasan would be present and testify at the hearing on arbitrability. (Doc. No. 149, Tr. 18: 22-25.) A prior admission is received because the party making it has the right and motive to appear at hearing and testify about it. See Shell v. Parrish, 448 F.2d 528, 535 (6th Cir. 1971) (party opnn am s os r am s b bcue h pr "s poet a t flopr n yt poet d i i a d i i e eas t a y a opnn hsh u pot i o sn e sl e t e l ut pt i slo t s n ad xln ifr easro" A t ucm n ei n a ha n uh e nh t d n ep i h om r s t n) th po ig v etr er g m f ea a s ei . e d iy i Dr. Hasan will have the right to retract, modify, or explain his deposition admissions, subject to t rl o ei ne n t l o pr r,n t N m d e nat r h t cnrn c s h u s f v ec ad h a f e uyad h a e D f dn 'i to of t r s e e d e w j e e s g o,oexamine, and argue all permissible inferences, including those bearing on the credibility of Dr. H sns ut ret oy T e a e D f dn 'i toue rH sns eoio a ta aa' fr e t i n. h N m d e nat r h t s D . aa' dpsi tr l h sm e s g tn i does not, however, turn on whether Dr. Hasan in fact attends and testifies.

II.

PLAINTIFFS MISREAD FRCP RULE 30(d)(2).

There is a second, independn l a r snfr ey gp i is S pr s nMo o, ete le o o dni ln f ' upe i g a n a tf so tn i even assuming that the time limitation in Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 30(d)(2) applies (which assumption is belied by the communications of counsel before the Hasan deposition (Exhibit A)). Plaintiffs contend that they were deprived of the right to cross-examine Dr. Hasan because the N m dD f dn ' one cnu e t flsvnhusseie i a e e nat cusl osm d h u ee or pc i nthe Rule. Pa tf e s e l fd ln f ' i is contention thus necessarily assumes that the seven hours specified in the Rule must include p i is e cv c s ln f ' l t e r s a tf e i o -examination of Dr. Hasan, and any follow-up. That assumption is wrong. 5

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 156

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 6 of 13

Rule 30(d)(2) and its accompanying commentary make clear that the Named Defendants were entitled to a full seven hours of examination of Dr. Hasan ­without regard to the time desired or needed for cross-ea i t n y rH sns w cusl T e di r C m ie xm n i b D . aa'o n one h A v oy o m te ao . s t Notes to Rule 30 state that examination of apr b t pr ' cusli gonsfr a y y h a ys one s rud o t e t extending the seven-hour limit, not for cutting into the examination time of adverse parties: "a i cni r g x ni t t e o a eoio ­ courts asked to order an extension Pre os e n et d g h i fr dpsi and ts di e n em tn ­ might consider a variety of factors. For xm l... sol t l yro t wt s w n t ea p e hu h a e frh i es ato d e w e n examine the witness, that may require additional t e See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Advisory i . m " Committee Notes, 2000 Amendment (emphasis added). The leading treatise on federal

procedure concurs. 8A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2104.1 (2d ed. Supp. 2005). The Named Defendants have not found any case or other at ry ad ln f ' t n is oefr ln f 'ot r psi . u oi ( p i isMo o ce nn)o p i iscn ay oio h t n a tf i t a tf r tn

III.

IN ANY EVENT, DR. HASAN WAS NOT DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

Although the Motion should be denied as a matter of law without regard to the issue of "pot i " o c s opr n y fr r s ut o -examination, the fact is that Dr. Hasan had every opportunity to submit to cross-examination by his own counsel at the deposition. The scheduling of D . aa' dpsi w sh sb c o nm ru cm ui t n rH sns eoio a t uj t f u e s o m n aos tn e e o ci a ogcusli prbcueo D . aa' i tlniec t t i dpsi nt ei m n one n a eas f rH sns n i i s ne h h eoio o bg , t ia s t a s tn n before 11:00 a.m. (Dr. Hasan later announced that he would arrive at 10:00 a.m.) to accommodate iaee hb o " s g a " n bcue ln f ' onewse t aj r h lgd ai f ri le ad eas p i iscusl i d o d un sl t in t a tf h o early in the afternoon of May 26 to attend the wedding of a nephew. At no time in those 6

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 156

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 7 of 13

d cs os i p i is cuslte n i et nt c s i us n d ln f ' one s t ay n n o o r s s i d a tf a t i o -examine Dr. Hasan or purport to reserve any time to do so. Moreover, by email of May 8 copied to Dr. Hasan, p i iscusl ln f ' one a tf himself advised that questioning of Dr. Hasan, on the second day, could last from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. that day, which would allow for more than seven hours on the second day alone. (Email, G. Merrick to B. Featherstone, dated May 8, 2005, attached at Exhibit A.)2 The Named Defendants commenced the deposition on May 26, 2005, having agreed to p i is r ust s rle n aj r erly on that day. The deposition was adjourned at ln f 'e eto t ta ad d un a a tf q a t o 2 0 ..o l wD . aa'cuslo tn t w di .T e a e D f dn r u e : p t ao rH sns onet aed h ed g h N m d e nat e m d 3 m l t e n e s s t iea i t no Ma 2, gi acm oan D . aa' r usfr le t t A t h r xm n i n y 7 aa co m dt g rH sns e eto a a s r f r e ao n i q t a. e the lunch break on th a e ono Ma 2, ln f ' one bgna on o n i tl o e f r o f y 7 p i is cusl ea cut w ,n il n tn a tf d iay the record, of the time allegedly remaining for the Named Defendants to complete the examination within the seven hours specified in Rule 30(d)(2). (Dep. Tr. 307: 4-17.)3 Named De nat cusl oc ddh ea i t na 3 0p .wt nt svnhus on d f dn ' one cnl e i xm n i t : . , i i h ee or cut e s u s ao 0 m h e e dw b p i is cusl A n t edr gt N m d D f dn 'ea i t nd o n y ln f ' one a tf . toi m ui h a e e nat xm n i i n e e s ao d p i is cusleus t et c s ln f ' one r eti o r s a tf q m o -examine his own client; request any discussion of the timing for cross-examination; or contend that any cross counted against a seven-hour time limitation.

2

The May 8 email, in the context of the other scheduling emails that preceded it (some of which are included in Exhibit A), explains why defense counsel were surprised when Mr. Merrick and Dr. Hasan for the first time insisted, as the deposition neared seven hours, that the deposition end at seven hours over two days. The time for deposition acknowledged by Dr. Hasan and his counsel on May 8 was never withdrawn before the deposition began. This e a ar m n df tp i is c i t t n svn m i ge et e a ln f ' lm h ay ee-hour limitation applied. This email also places in context l e e s a tf a a t cnel et f ln f ' one d cs dle hr n o p i is d h oca n o p i is cusl i us a r e i f ln f ' ecision first to renege on the agreed e m a tf , s e t e, a tf length and then to claim that the time needed by defense counsel prevented cross.
3

Ct ecrtf mD . aa'dpsi t nc p a ecrt ad tce hr o s xi t . id xe sr e p o rH sns eoio r sr tr xe e n aahd e ta E hb B tn a i e pd t e i

7

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 156

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 8 of 13

O la et N m d e natcm le D . aa'ea i t n at l , w s n f rh a e D f dn o p t rH sns xm n i ( u l i a y t e e s ed ao c ay t e et e t m nt b p i iscuslf re hours, in the middle of a line of f cvl e i e y ln f 'onea esven f i y r ad a tf t ea i t n,i p i iscusllmfrh fst ehte i e tc s xm n i )d ln f 'onec i o t iti t h ws do r s ao d a tf a er m a h o -examine his client; allege for the first time that he had the right to have the time for that cross-examination count against the seven hours; and assert for the first time that, because there was not sufficient time remaining in the seven hours to cross and redirect, he would not conduct any cross. (See Dep. Tr. 343: 4- 344: 1.) (Yet, even then counsel did not claim, as plaintiffs now claim, that the Hasan deposition transcript should be suppressed.) The Named Defendants invited counsel to c sbte c d one s t rs ros D . aa'cusle sd o rce,n t r s ur et cusl o eas t n. rH sns oner ue tpoedadh o j e ' h ei f e parties then concluded the deposition. (See Dep. Tr. 344: 2-345: 7.) There is no rule of practice or order of the Cori t s ae ht one s w c s utn h cs t cusl o n r s i a ' oexamination of his party counts against the seven-hour time period of Rule 30(d)(2), nor was there any previous agreement of the parties that such cross-examination must or would occur wt nt svnhus A ds c N m dD f dn ' xm nt nedda 3 0p .t r i i h ee or n i e a e e nat ea i i ne t : . ,h e h e . n e s ao 0 m e r a e to u husn h nr abs es a fr ln f ' onet c s e i d w fl ori t om l ui s dy o p i iscuslo r s m n l e n a tf o -examine, if he so desired. In short, plai iscusla ee opr n yo rs n f 'onehd vr pot i tc s tf y ut o -examine Dr. Hasan. But even had it been otherwise, plaintiffs have waived their current position that their cross-examination counts against the seven hours. Had plaintiffs announced their present

position earlier, during t N m d e nat ea i t nt pre cu hv adesd h h a e D f dn 'xm n i , e a i ol ae dr e t e e s ao h ts d s e matter of timing with the Court (Magistrate Judge Boland in particular) if the dispute persisted. Instead, plaintiffs concealed their position until the conclusion of t N m d D f dn ' h a e e nat e e s

8

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 156

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 9 of 13

examination.4 Pa tf concealment in an attempt to prejudice the Named Defendants is even ln f ' i is more apparent in the context of Mr. Me i ' pe rc s r rk -deposition acknowledgement that the second day of the deposition alone could last until 11:00 p.m. (Exhibit A.) Failure to object to the length of the deposition during the deposition is a waiver of any such objection. See Dorn v. Potter,9 F S p.d 1,1 n ( D Pn.02 ( Pln fm i a shth l g o 11 . up2 6265 . W.. en 20)" ] i i a tn t t e t f 2 [ a tf n i a e n h his deposition exceeded the limits set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pa tf ln f ' i is counsel, however, never raised this issue at any time during the deposition itself and, therefore, t soj t ni w i d ) Pa tf w i dt psi t tc s h b co s a e.. ln f a e h oio h r s i ei v " i is v e t n a o -examination must be counted within the seven hours, because they failed to state it earlier, particularly in light of Mr. Me i 'pe rc s r rk -deposition acknowledgement in his May 8 email at Exhibit A. Pa tf s ir w i dt i cusl asro, aeafter the conclusion of the ln f i l l a e h r one s s t n m d i is m a y v e ' ei N m d e nat ea i t n t t e a nt rcei wt c s a e D f dn ' xm n i ,h h w s o poed g i r s e s ao a n h o -examination because of purported concern that the Named Defendants might seek follow-up redirect examination after cross. Any such alleged concern was entirely speculative because no cross-examination had been conducted or proffered; it is impossible to say what the cross might have been, in substance or length, and it is equally impossible to say whether there would have been any need for followup. However, ip i isrl hdal im t cne aot a e D f dn 'o o -up f ln f t y a e t a ocr bu N m d e nat fl w a tf u gi e n e s l and a belief they could limit it, plaintiffs should have presented any such concern to the Magistrate Judge either before or after the cross-examination by a motion for protective order.

4

The Advisory Committee Notes to the Federal Rules encourage cooperation between the parties with respect to deposition scheduling. See Fd R CvP 3 A v oy o m te o s20 A ed et" iepc d htn e. . i .0 di r C m ie N t ,00 m nm n ( ts xet t i . s t e I e a most instances the parties and the witness will make reasonable accommodations to avoid the need for resort to the cut). T e a e D f dn cr i y opr e b acm oan p i isshdl g ed o Ma 2 or" h N m d e nat e a l coe t y co m dt g ln f 'ceu n nes n y 6 . e s tn ad i a tf i 27, and also by concluding their examination well before the end of the normal business day.

9

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 156

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 10 of 13

Because plaintiffs elected not to proceed with cross-examination or take up the matter with the Court, they have no basis to complain. Fnl , ln f ' e a i asros nt iMo o aot e ya oa fvl s i l p i is r i n s t n i h r t n bu dl l r r o u. ay a tf m n g e i e i a s e i o Pa tf asro t th N m dD f dn ' xm nt nw s i rai dadcn i d ln f ' s t n h t a e e nat ea i i a d ogn e n otn i is e i a e e s ao s z ae lengthy pauses is not supported by even one citation to the record. (Mot. at 2, ¶ 4.) The Named Defendants categorically deny this assertion. In any event, there is a recognized way for counsel to seek orders during a deposition if the conduct is harassing or abusive ­through a motion for protective order or by consultation with the Magistrate Judge. No such effort was made by plaintiffs during the deposition of Dr. Hasan.

IV.

A T R E S F E S O L B A R E T T EN ME T O N Y ' E S H U D E WA D D O H A D DEFENDANTS BECAUSE P A N IF ' L I T F S MOTION IS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY MERITLESS, WAS MADE FOR AN IMPROPER PURPOSE, AND WAS MAINTAINED AFTER THE JUNE 16 HEARING.

Pa tf Mo o de ntdentify the Rule under which it is purportedly brought. It ln f ' t n os o i i is i appears, however, to be a motion for a protective order under Rule 26; by the express words of R l2( , e rv i s f u 3( ()ocri a a a o aony'es plso u 6c t poio o R l 7a 4 cne n n w r ft resf ap e t a e )h sn e ) ng d t e i denial of a motion for a protective order. As explained above, there is simply no legal or factual basis, in the words of Rule 3( ()t " sf"h Mo o;o t tesn l ea a a o aony'eso h N m d 7a 4, j ty t s t n frh r o a n,n w r f t resf t t a e ) o ui i i a a o d t e e Defendants is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 26(c) and 37(a)(4). A a a o aony' esi a t m r apor t bcueii ei n t th n w r f t res f s l h oe prpie eas ts v eth t s d t e l e a d a i fvl s t nw s aefr ni poe proe t spr s n ke f m t C ut r o u Mo o a m d o a m rpr ups: o upe ad ep r h ors i o i s o e ' purview a transcript that is replete with admissions, recantations, and other credibility-destroying 10

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 156

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 11 of 13

testimony of Dr. Hasan.A d ln f 'ugs d om o "lrav" ee ­that Dr. Hasan n p i issget fr s f ae t e r i a tf e tn i lf sol b ao e t "or t o "l i " h am s osad r ati swt u ay hu e l w d o cr c r c ry i d i i d l e" af s s n n e n t n i ot n c ao h opportunity for follow-up examination by the Named Defendants ­ nothing but a request for a is license for Dr. Hasan to conjure up yet additional fanciful tales, unfettered by rebuttal.5 Finally, an award of fees and costs is appropriate because plaintiffs failed to reconsider adwt r t iMo o i v w o t C ut cm et aoth Mo o a t Jn 16 n i da h r t n n i fh ors o m n bu t h w e i e e ' s e t n th ue i e hearing, thereby requiring the Named Defendants to file this response.6

5

Pa tf Mo o aahs i aoe i dpeeti , nyp i is ps ln f ' t n tce,n n-s e r n t n ol ln f ' ot i is i t d s ao a tf -deposition communications with df s cusl nt sbet f r H snsdpsi adp i is pof e "lravs T eN m d e ne one o h uj o D . aa' eoio n ln f ' rf r ae t e. h a e e e c tn a tf e d tn i " Defendants attach hereto a E h iCt ir pne t p i is cm ui t n,ocm le h r od T e s xi t h re osso ln f ' o m n aost o p t t e r. h b e s a tf ci e e c N m dD f dn cni r adr et p i is vr u "rpsl fr l wn D . aa t "or t t a e e nat os e d n e c d ln f ' a os pooa " o ao i rH sn o cr c h e s de j e a tf i s l g e" e record. In each case, Dr. Hasan proposed to address his deposition admissions only by statements prepared in consultation with his counsel, after considerable delay, and without provision for further examination by the Named Defendants. A deposition is supposed to be taken as if at trial, and delays to preset pea d t t oy r nt n "r r " e i n a o p e sm e allowed. See Fd R Cv P 3( ( xm nt nadc s e. . i . 0c " a i i n r s . ) E ao o -examination of witnesses may proceed as permitted at t ta udrh poios f ee l ue o E i ne xet u s 0 ad65 )T e a e D f dn h r l ne te rv i o Fdr R l f v ec ecp R l 13 n 1. h N m d e nat ei sn a s d e " e s rightly rejected these proposals.
6

Exhibit D includes the emails between the parties regarding whether plaintiffs would withdraw their Motion after the June 16 hearing. Plaintiffs declined to withdraw the Motion except on unacceptable terms.

11

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 156

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 12 of 13

CONCLUSION F rh fr o gr sn, ln f ' t nt br s o t dpsition of Malik M. o t oe i e osp i is Mo o o a ue fh eo e gn a a tf i e H sna ta sol b dn d adt N m dD f dn sol b a a e aony'es aa tr lhu e ei , n h a e e nat hu e w r d t res f i d e e e s d d t e under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 26(c) and 37(a)(4).7

DATED: July 6, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

s/Bruce A. Featherstone Bruce A. Featherstone Matthew D. Collins Kenneth B. Thomson FEATHERSTONE DESISTO LLP 600 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 626-7100 Facsimile: (303) 626-7101 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Max Gitter Nancy I. Ruskin CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, New York 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2000 E-mail: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR THE NAMED DEFENDANTS

7

Pursuant to Administrative Order 2005-0, e a e D f dn ' ed n frin t s epneo h 7t N m d e nat dal eo fi h R sos t t h e s i lg i e Pa tf S pr s n t n a et ddo n i l i Jl6, 2005. ln f ' upe i Mo o w s x ne t adn u n u i is so i e cdg y

12

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 156

Filed 07/06/2005

Page 13 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that on July 6, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: Glenn W. Merrick SENN VISCIANO KIRSCHENBAUM MERRICK P.C. [email protected] Lee Katherine Goldstein SENN VISCIANO KIRSCHENBAUM MERRICK P.C. [email protected] Max Gitter CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP [email protected] and I hereby certify that I have mailed or served the same on the following non-CM/ECF participant by placing same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid addressed to: Nancy I. Ruskin Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen, & Hamilton-New York One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006

s/Bruce A. Featherstone Bruce A. Featherstone FEATHERSTONE DESISTO LLP 600 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 626-7100 Facsimile: (303) 626-7101 E-mail: [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR THE NAMED DEFENDANTS

13