Free Request - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MESCHKOW & GRESHAM, P.L.C.

Jordan M. Meschkow (AZ Bar No. 007454) Lowell W. Gresham (AZ Bar No. 009702) 5727 North Seventh Street Suite 409 Phoenix, Arizona 85014-5818 (602) 274-6996 (602) 274-6970 (facsimile) Attorneys for Plaintiff

GILES LEGAL, P.L.C.

Nancy R. Giles (AZ Bar No. 020163) 733 West Willetta Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 252-1788 Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA DAN COOGAN, doing business as COOGAN PHOTOGRAPHIC, Plaintiff, v. AVNET, INC., et al. Defendants. Plaintiff Dan Coogan respectfully requests oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Withdraw Admissions and to Enter Denials as to Request to Admit Nos. 15 and 43 of Avnet's Responses to Plaintiff's Third Requests for Admission. Plaintiff makes his request in large part because Defendants' Motion and Reply are misleading regarding the level of prejudice their withdrawal of admissions will have on Plaintiff. For example, Defendants incorrectly suggest that "the difference in value between the two uses amounts to less than .002% of Plaintiff's entire claim for actual damages." This statement is untrue.
Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB 8050-0131-206-1 Document1206 Filed 05/16/2006 Page 1 of 3

Case No.: CV-04-0621 PHX SRB

PLAINTIFF DAN COOGAN'S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Moreover, Defendants further ignore that their request to change their admissions is patently disingenuous: Avnet did not make this change until after discovery closed, in response to a Motion from Plaintiff in which the admissions were harmful to Defendants' case. Finally, Defendants also completely ignore the reality that their changing of admissions would not occur in a vacuum: if Avnet is "updating" previous

discovery responses, it must also update responses to previous document requests and produce the documents that led them to their new conclusion about the facts in this case. If Defendants "suddenly" discovered that none of Plaintiff's

photographs ever showed up on Avnet's home page, this Court should first order them to offer believable evidence of that fact, including web site histories and archives that Defendants, to date, have claimed do not exist. For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court hear oral argument on Defendants' Motion and, if necessary, on the discovery issues that Defendants' Motion creates.

Respectfully submitted this 16th day of May, 2006, s/Jordan M. Meschkow Jordan M. Meschkow MESCHKOW & GRESHAM, P.L.C. 5727 North Seventh Street Suite 409 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF And Nancy R. Giles GILES LEGAL, P.L.C. 733 West Willetta Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB 8050-0131-206-1

Document2206

Filed 05/16/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 s/Jordan M. Meschkow

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 16th day of May, 2006 I electronically transmitted the attached document and its Exhibits to the Clerk's Office using the ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrants: Jordan Green FENNEMORE CRAIG 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 2600 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2913 Attorneys for Defendants and Nancy R. Giles Giles Legal, P.L.C. 733 West Willetta Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-1920 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB 8050-0131-206-1

Document3206

Filed 05/16/2006

Page 3 of 3