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

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. Case No.: CV-04-0621 PHX SRB

PLAINTIFF DAN COOGAN'S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants. Plaintiff Dan Coogan ("Coogan") respectfully requests oral argument on Defendants' Motion To Preclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Richard Weisgrau ("Weisgrau Motion"). Plaintiff believes the Court's May 9, 2006 Order anticipates oral argument on the Motion, but files this Request to ensure procedural compliance. Plaintiff makes his request in large part because Defendants have misstated numerous facts. For example, Defendants' analysis of "Mr. Weisgrau's use of 2005 stock photo values" is completely disingenuous. See Reply at 3-4.
Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB 8050-0131-203-1 Document1203 Filed 05/10/2006 Page 1 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

Defendants ignore that much of the infringement, including the distribution of the infringing 2002 and 2003 Annual Reports, was continuous through 2003, 2004, and the first ten months of 2005, making Weisgrau's 2005 figures accurate for much of the Annual Report infringements, and making Defendants' 2002 figures accurate for only three months of three years of infringement, at best. Similarly, Defendants misapply the Baker case by citing its reference to "apples and oranges" comparisons, yet failing to explain that the Baker situation is not analogous to the situation they raise, because these Defendants did not acquire generic photographs; rather, it was both "very good"1 and KNOWN photographs of Roy Vallee that Defendants acquired. Other misstatements, as can be shown in oral argument, abound. For the foregoing reasons, in the interest of fairness and a correct factual record, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court hold oral argument on Defendants' Motion To Preclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Richard Weisgrau. Respectfully submitted this 10th day of May, 2006, s/Nancy R. Giles Nancy R. Giles GILES LEGAL, P.L.C. 733 West Willetta Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF and Jordan M. Meschkow MESCHKOW & GRESHAM, P.L.C. 5727 North Seventh Street Suite 409 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF According to individual Defendant Allen Maag, an officer of Defendant Avnet as well; See Amended Complaint Exhibit 53.
Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB 8050-0131-203-1 Document2203 Filed 05/10/2006 Page 2 of 3
1

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 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
Case 2:04-cv-00621-SRB 8050-0131-203-1 Document3203 Filed 05/10/2006 Page 3 of 3

I hereby certify that on this 10th 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 Jordan M. Meschkow MESCHKOW & GRESHAM, P.L.C. 5727 North Seventh Street Suite 409 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Attorneys for Plaintiff

s/Nancy R. Giles