Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 60.5 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 433 Words, 2,880 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/43671/95-2.pdf

Download Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona ( 60.5 kB)


Preview Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona
*

= EXHIBIT 1 =
AFFIDAVIT ep JAMES K. THURSTON
Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC Document 95-2 Filed O2/21/2006 Page 1 of 2

STATE OF ILLINOIS ) D
COUNTY OF COOK )
AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES K. THURSTON
I, JAMES K. Tl·fURSTON,.having been first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states that
under the penalty of perjury: T _ · _
‘
1. I have personal knowledge ofthe matters contained herein, and if called to testify
as a witness in this matter, I could testify fully and competently to the matters
contained herein. .

2. I am an equity partner with the law firm Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman &
Dicker in Chicago, Illinois. I have been a practicing law since September 1989. I
am lead counsel for Carolina Casualty Insurance Company in the Alanco
Coverage Lawsuit. I
3. Myself] and my associate, Daniel Tranen, working under my supervision, have
been involved in all aspects of the discovery with Alanco. I am aware of all
discovery answers and documents produced by the Plaintiffs (Alanco, et ai.) in
this Coverage Lawsuit.
4. I have reviewed Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss and Motion for —
Summary Judgment and the Statement of Facts attached thereto and both dated
§ June 14, 2004. I have also reviewed the Stipulated Statement of Facts filed by
p Alanco on March ll, 2005 and Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Facts in Support
of Its Motion for Summary Judgment, that are collectively attached as Exhibit 9 to V
Carolina’s Response SOF. None of the "xhibits to summary judgment niotions” *
referenced in Alanc0’s Initial Disclosures dated February 14, 2004 contain the
Exhibits B, D and E that are contained in Plaintiffs’ "Statement of Facts In
Support of Plaintiff` s Response to Carolina’s Motion for Summary [Judgment]" é
("Plaintiffs’ Response SOF") filed on February 2, 2006. ,
5. In its present "Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary .Iudgrnent”,
, Plaintiffs rely on Exhibits B, D and E- None of these documents were ever
identified, disclosed or produced to Carolina during discovery. E
6. The first time Carolina saw these Exhibits B, D and E was in P1aintiffs’ Response
SOF filed on February 2, 2006.
E FURTHER AFFIANT SAYET NOT SUBSCRIBED d SWORN to efore me I
` ’ thidjgi q=· _2006.
` . · i I · · · (4* ..
Qu.; *~· — &u§’ '
J s K. r ron |: orauv PUB}. U
OFFiClAL SEAL
LYNN D. LAJOIE
Nomar rustic. STATE OF ILLINOIS
MY commission EXPIHES 5-10-2006
3°°8°”·case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC Document 95-2 Fuse 02/21/200 — e » - · of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC

Document 95-2

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00789-DGC

Document 95-2

Filed 02/21/2006

Page 2 of 2