Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Index of Exhibits
Defendant Omron Corporation’s Motion In Limine No. ll:
To Exclude Evidence Related To Alleged Dual Representation of
1 Omron Corporation and Verve L.L.C.
° Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit
A. 5/17/2006 Deposition of Kemer
B. 3/2/2005 Deposition of Nakano
C. 3/ 1 l/2005 Deposition of Galasso 4
Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR Document 174-2 Filed 04/13/2007 Page 1 of 4

. 2 ;·
!
l
1
Ex1—11B1T A `
2 ¤
L
· ` ‘ 1.

· 2 . !
2 1
I
i
- 2 . E
Case 2:O4—cv-OO400-PGR Document 174-2 Filed O4/13/2007 Page 2 0f 4 I

. I
I
* I
~ Page 1 i
`. nc ms uurrsn s·rA·nz:s DISTRICT coum
Fon nm DISTRICT 01-* muzoma
uyprnccm conpomuxou, 1 1 ;·‘
1 ‘ I 5
Plaintiff, 1 I
) I
—ve- ) CIVIL ACTION NO. Q I
1 cxv 04-0400 pax pcm
vznvz 1..L.c. and cmncm 1 1
conpomvrxou, 1 I
1
Defendants. ) i Q
I
I I
I
‘ I
vxnsompsu nsposrrrou os- HERBERT v. xsmmn, III
, if
The videotaped deposition upon oral i 1*
examination of HERBERT V. KBRNER, III, a witness I I
produced and sworn before me, Dianne Lockhart, CSR, · § *
RMR, CRR, Notary Public in and for the County of I !
Marion, State of Indiana, taken on behalf of the g I
plaintiff at the offices of Baker & Daniels, I #_
300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700, I
Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana, on the I
17th day of May, 2006, at 9:32 a.m., pursuant to Q ‘
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with written §
notice as to time and place thereof. E _ :
I
Connor + Associates, Inc. ` f Q
1650 One American Square I I
Indianapolis, IN 46282 .E i
(3171zas-sozz
I
. I I
. |·
I I
. I I
I I.
. I
I
I I
I I
Case 2:04-cv—OO400—PGR Document 174-2 Filed O4/13/2007 Page 3 of 4 i

Y
Page 222
1 l going to follow you from Hunton & Williams to E @
2 Baker & Daniels, even during this interim period; E
1 you knew that? i j
4 A Yes. E i
5 Q Now, you're aware that Raymond Galasso claimed E i
6 that Hunton & Williams was representing Verve in E I
7 connection with those negotiations, aren’t you? & Q
8 A Yes. I read his deposition. § {
9 Q Is that accurate? E g
1° A I know of no basis for his statement that g E
H Hunton & Williams represented Verve in any way g é
H in those negotiations, or at any time when I wasi i
B at Hunton & Williams. k g x
14 (At this time Deposition Exhibit No. 26 wasg E
E marked for identification.) g i
16 Q Let me hand you a document that I've asked the g `
17 court reporter to mark as Kerner Deposition k {
18 Exhibit 26.
19 MR. IRMSCHER: Is that the same one you i E
1° just handed me? Let me see it. Yeah, same one,% 2
21 okay. ‘ . E i
11 MR. LEACH: Yeah, should be. i i
B Q This is a exchange of e—mails between you and A; `
M Raymond Galasso; correct? Q %
15 A Yes. g {
i_i-mr; ._,_ ____ _,_,., oilmMWmllM.mWmrllnnmnni ,._. ..._. ...... .,i-i ..~. .,... ...,.... ri ..... h.ni .... ......... i ....., l--Mwi .,.. ..... M .... .} .,,. i
Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR D0cument174-2 Filed O4/13/2007 Page40f4

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 174-2

Filed 04/13/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 174-2

Filed 04/13/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 174-2

Filed 04/13/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 174-2

Filed 04/13/2007

Page 4 of 4