Free Brief in Support of Motion - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-01973-PSF-MJW

Document 221-5

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT D

Case 1:03-cv-01973-PSF-MJW

Document 221-5

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 2 of 4

FAIRFIELD AND WOODS,

P.C.
Tamara A. Hofthuhr 303.894.4406 [email protected]

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2400 1700 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203-4524 Telephone: (303) 830-2400 Facsimile: (303) 830-1033 www.fwlaw.com

July 11, 2006

Via Email and U.S. Mail Richard S. Gottlieb Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 1001 West Fourth St. Winston-Salem NC 27101-2400 Re: Knutson v. Walker Group Inc. United States District Court for the District of Colorado Civil Action No. 03-cv-1973-PSF-MJW

Dear Richard, This letter responds to your letter dated July 7, 2006. We disagree with your interpretation of Judge Watanabe's June 12, 2006 Order ("Order") and believe that Mr. Knutson's supplemental responses are sufficient. Interrogatory 8(f) The Order does not require Mr. Knutson to list the personal property owned by his wife. There is no iargi~age the q~otc citc from the Order rcqluring such disclosure Tl'e portion in you ofthe Order you cite does not mention Mrs. Knutson and only refers to "Defendant." This makes sense because in your Motion to Compel, you did not ask this Court to order disclosure of Mrs Knutson's personal property, you asked the Court to order disclosure ofMr Knutson's personal property: "Defendant is obligated to identify all valuables he owned or had any interest in from January 1, 2000 to present." Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Walker Group's Motion To Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Production of Documents at p. 11. Mrs. Knutson is not a party to this case and the judgment was not entered against her. Mrs. Knutson's personal property is simply not relevant here. Mr. Knutson is also not withholding any information on the grounds that his personal property is exempt under C.R.S. § 13-54-102. Mr. Knutson specifically listed all of his personal property and clearly stated the property listed was exempt under C.R.S. § 13-54-102.

Case 1:03-cv-01973-PSF-MJW

Document 221-5

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 3 of 4

Richard S. Gottlieb July 11,2006 Page 2

Interrogatory 10 Although you identified this interrogatory in your letter, you do not discuss it. We therefore assume you are satisfied with Mr. Knutson's response to this interrogatory. Request For Production 14 The Order requires disclosure of the joint tax returns filed by Mr. and Mrs. Knutson, but
consistent with Judge Watanabe's previous order ofAugust 30, 2004, Mr. Knutson is entitled to redact any personal financial information as to Mrs. Knutson. The August 30, 2004 order states:

Defendant's Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests is GRANTED. References to [Mr. Knutson's] wife and any personal financial information as to [Mr. Knutson's] wife may be redacted. However, theirjoint assets shall be disclosed. See Courtroom Minutes/Minute Order dated August 30, 2004 at p. 2. This order has not been vacated and is still in effect. Mr. Knutson properly produced the 2004 joint return with his wife's personal financial information redacted. Next, you have never requested Mr. Knutson to produce his 2005 tax return. Your discovery requests were served in December 2005 and asked for tax returns for the "past three years". Obviously 2005 tax returns were not due until April 15, 2006; therefore your discovery requests sought returns for 2002, 2003 and 2004. Those were produced to you. Judge Watanabe's Order does not order Mr. Knutson to produce his 2005 tax returns because it uses the same language you used in your discovery requests: "past three years." There has been no ruling as to the meaning of that phrase. In any event, because we believe you would be entitled to a redacted copy ofMr. Knutson's 2005 tax return if you would serve a request for it, we will provide it to you. Mr. Knutson is currently locating these documents and we will produce them to you soon. Re quest For Production 18 Finally, we disagree with your position that Mr. Knutson should produce copies of the same documents you have subpoenaed, some of which you have already received, from various financial institutions. That is a duplicative and unnecessary exercise. There is no justification for Mr. Knutson to produce documents you already have or soon will have pursuant to your subpoenas.

Case 1:03-cv-01973-PSF-MJW

Document 221-5

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 4 of 4

Richard S. Gottlieb
July 11, 2006

Page 3

We also disagree with your contention that we are not cooperating with you to obtain

documents relating to Mr. Knutson's individual and joint accounts. The Motion to Quash and For Protective Order we filed seeks to quash the portions ofthe subpoenas seeking information prior to October 1, 2000 and information relating to Suzanne Knutson's individual accounts. The Motion does not seek to quash documents relating to Mr. Knutson's individual and joint
accounts after October 1, 2000. We have spent numerous hours calling and writing letters to the various financial institutions you subpoenaed to expedite the production of documents relating to Mr. Knutson's individual and joint accounts. Your accusations of lack of cooperation are simply

unfounded.
I hope this letter resolved your concerns. Please let me know if you still intend to file a

motion to show cause.

Very truly yours,

~

Tamara A. offbuhr of

(I~t

FAIRFIELD AND WOODS, P.C.

TAHsd cc: Joshua Maximon