Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS

Document 108-2

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 1 of 8

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS

Document 108-2

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 2 of 8

G@PY
TINITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT FORTHE DISTRICTOF COLORADO 1 Civil ActionNo. 04-cv:01 60-LTB-CBS ISABELLE DETKEVORKIAN, Plaintiff, v. SHARRYNE.ROSSand d/b/aLIONBRIDGEUS,INC., D.IC., LIONBRIDGETECHNOLOGIES, MARTEL & SILVERMAN, LLP R.OSS,

Defendants. PLAINTIFF' S FED.R.CIV. P. 26(a)(2) EXPERT TE STIMOI\IY DISCL OSURES concerning 26(aX2),Plaintiff makesthe following Disclosures Pursuant Fed.R.Civ.P. to identityandtestimonyof Plaintiffs Experts: 1. Ave., Suite284, PC, and Bart Chavez Chavez Associates, LLO, 2809South125ft ,

matters immigration Mr. Nebraska68144;402-330-2434. Chavezwilltestifyconcerning Omaha, the in general, hairdlingof theeffort to obtaina greencardfor Plaintiff, andDefendants'conductin his which contains education, Vitae is attached Curriculum that effort. A copy of Mr. Chavez's and licenses certification. Copiesof Mr. Chavez'sreportand Curricqlum training,background, per charges $250.00 hour for his services.Mr. Chavezwill also Vitae areattached.Mr. Chavez is as evidence, discovery ongoingat this time. uponcurrentdiscovery his support opinionbased CERTIFICATION and information belief,formedafterreasonable I CERTIFYthatto thebestofmyknowledge,

Case 1:04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS

Document 108-2

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 3 of 8

and are inqurry,the aboveDisclosures complete correctasof the datesetforth below. DATED this 29ft dayof August,2005. lly Respectfu submitted, IETZE and DAVIS' P.C.

for Plaintiff Suite400 2060Broadway, Boulder,CO 80302 (303)447-137s CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE , I herebycertify that on the 29th dayofAugust,2005 atrue andconectcopyofthe foregoing as prepaid, addressed follows: postage mai1, in was deposited the United States document Esq. Dan S. Cross, The OvertonLaw Finn 1080KalamathStreet Denver,CO 80204 JohnE. Bolmer,II David E. Leavenworth LLC Hall& Evans, Sheet 1125Seventeenth Suite600 Denver,CO 80202

Case 1:04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS

Document 108-2

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 4 of 8

Bart A. Ghavez Attornevat Law 2809South125th Avenue, Suite284 Omaha, 68144 NE (f') ft) a02.330-2434 402-691-0012 EDUGATION: Washburn University 8.A.,1982, magna cumlaude CriminalJustice BARADMISSION StateBarof Kansas Admitted May,1991 StateBarof Nebraska Admitted, September,992 1 EXPERIENCE Chavezand Associates, PG,LLO 1992- present PresidenUOwner Omaha, NE Practices all areasof immigration including: in law . Deportation o lmmigrant Visas o Employment Based o Family Based . Non-lmmigrant Visas I NACAM . Asylum r Temporary Protected Status r Consular Processing . Naturalization Nebraska Gontinuing LegalEducation Panel 1gg9 Faculty Member Omaha,NE Advised issues pertaining immigration specifically on to law, deportation andremoval. AILA Midwest Regional Conference 2001 Panelist Chicago, lL pertaining the process Adjustment Status. Advised issues on to of of AILA NationalGonference 2001 Panelist Boston, MA Advised issues pertaining the process Adjustment Staius. on to of of LormanEducationServices Speaker Business lmmigration in Nebraska Law EXPERT WITNESS: 2001 Omaha, NE Washburn University J . D ,1 9 8 5 ,

DePape Trinity v. Health Sysfem, lnc.242F.Supp.2d S8S, 602-8(N.D. 2003) Expert witness stateandfederal in caseinvolving immigration issues,

y. PUBLISHED DECISIONS: Lopez-Flores DHS,376 F.3d793 (Bth Cir.2004) PUBLICATIONS: MEMBERSHIPS: American Association Bar Kansas State Bar Nebraska StateBar American lmmigration Lawyers Association 1gg1- present present 1gg119gZ present 1gg3- present Article,Adjustment Sfafusfor BeginningPractitioners AILA's of from Immigration Nationality Handbook2T6 and (2001-2002 Law ed.)

Case 1:04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS
HONORS:

Document 108-2

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 5 of 8

AV Rating, Martindale Hubbel Washburn University Boardof Governors

Case 1:04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS

Document 108-2

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 6 of 8

Report of Expert Witness
ISABELLE DERKEVORKIAN V. LIONBRIDGETECHNOLOGIES, INC., DIB/A LIONBRIDGEUS, [NC., SHARRYNE. ROSS, AND ROSS, MARTEL & SILVERMAN,LLP United States District Courtfor the District of Colorado Civil ActionNo. 04-8-1160 (CBS) Facts: This is an actionbroughtby the plaintiffIsabelleDerKevorkian (Plaintitr)v. her former employer, LionbridgeTechnologies, (Defendant). Inc This matterarose to the fact due that Lionbridgewas unableto complete immigrantvisaprocessing Ms. the for DerKevorkian.Lionbridgeinitiatedthe immigrantvisaprocessing Ms. Derkevorkian for on or around December 17,2001. On February 11,2002,defendant informedplaintiff that it needed amend H-18 visato reflecther current Translation to her job Manager.On or.aroundApril 16, 2002plantiffwas informedthatthe law firm of RossarldRoss, Martel & Silverman LLP, wasrequesting prevailingwagedetermination a , from the ColoradoState Employment office. Plaintiffwastheninfonnedon May 29,2002,there was a problemrelatingto herprevailingwageandthat firther clarificationwasneeded beforeproceeding with her case. or around On September 17,2002,a meeting washeld with Lionbridgepersonnel plaintiff wasadvised theprevailingwageissuecould and that not be resolved her favor. Plaintiff wasthentold that in orderto proceed in with her application Permanent for Resident Status shehadto accept demotion that a from her cu:rentpositionof Translation Manager that of a Translator. to Plaintiffs H-lB srarus expired October on 1,2003. I)ocuments Reviewed: This expertwaspresented with a numberof documents relatedto this abovemafler. Thesedocuments included: 1. Plaintiffs ComplaintandJuryDemand 2. LionbridgeTechnologies Answerto Amended Complaint 3. Defendant's Sharryn RossandRoss, E. Martel and Silverman, LLP's Answerand' Defenses Plaintiffs Amended to Complaint 4. GroupExhibit #50 5. ExhibitsNumbered 2-51 6. Deposition Sharryn Ross of E. 7. Deposition Isabelle of DerKevorkian 8. Deposition Jennifer of Lynn Tymokvich 9. Deposition Barbara Peralta of J.

Case 1:04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS

Document 108-2

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 7 of 8

Findingsand Conclusions This expertwitnesshasbeenin theprivatepractice law for nearlyfourteen years. of During this periodof time the practice developed a full+ime immigrationlaw has into firm. The practiceservices varietyof clientsin a number immigrationmatters a of processing, including,but not iimited to family immigration, visaconsular removalwork, relatedto citizenship naturalization business asylum,issues and and immigration. The practicerepresents business clientson issues regarding alienlaborcertification, H-18 visas,L-l visas,TN visasand otherrelated areas. Plaintiffs issues not uncommon in are this expert'spractice. In reviewingthe documents submitted expert generally this has foundthat all the parties associated with this actionhavemadedecisions based well established on laws and regulations both the ImmigrationNationalityAct andthe Department Labor(DOL). of of Eachof the depositions carefullyreviewed the witnesses' was for understanding of immigrationpracticeandthe regulations the lawsthemselves. of This expertdoesnot haveissuewith Ms. Ross'sknowledge the immigration of laws andDOL. What this expertis troubledby, however, themanner which defendants is in conducted the effort to resolveplaintifPs status.First andforemost, werefully aware defendants that plaintiff hadonly approximately yearandninemonthsto resolveher visa status. one Time was of the essence the decision proceed not to proceed in to or with her application for alienlabor certification. Defendants failedto placetheplaintiffon noticeof the situationin a reasonable timely manner or leavingher with no otheroptionsto resolve her immigrationissues. If defendants wereunableto resolve prevailing the wageissue, they shouldhavehada meetingwith the plaintiffand advised accordingly.A reviewof the recordshows her that this wasnot doneuntil September 2002. Theparties of shouldhaveexploredoptions for the plaintiffin May of 2002at the latest. This should havebeendonesoplaintiff would havehadthe opportunity seekemployment to elsewhere. in This couldhaveresulted the plaintiff remainingin the United States until her immigration visaprocessing was completed.For example, plaintifffound new emplolnnent the new employer if and beganthe alienlabor certificationprocess, is reasonable believethat plaintiffcould it to havebeengranted extensions herH-18 for periods a yearbeginning October on in of of 2003. This lack of communication disregard plaintifPsbestinterests and for appears to ! be in my mind the mostegregious errorin this case. policy or practice not To havenot communicated plaintiff regardless corporate with of is well founded.To the bestof this expert's knowledge, mostimmigrationfirms and corporateclients alwaysmaintain contactwith both the individual employeeandthe corporate representative the throughout greencardprocess.A clearchannel of communication shouldbe maintained the.event in issues suchasthis arise. This wasnot donein this case.

Case 1:04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS

Document 108-2

Filed 11/17/2006

Page 8 of 8

the the duringthe process, attorney, employer, whena problemarises In my experience, if work. However, this is will work handin handto makethe situation andthe employee must the employee, attorney and the between employer not possibleanda conflict arises to of at leastinform the employee the problemandof the conflict andrecommend the failedto keep Here,defendants counsel. that employee he or sheobtainseparate of of informedof the status theprocess, all the optionsthat maybe plaintiffadequately that and therewith, failedto recommend she to available her andanyrisksassociated to counsel protecther interests. obtainsepaxate