Free Objection - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit No. A

Description Civil Exhibit List

8763356.2

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 1 of 17

EXHIBIT A
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 593-2 Filed 08/11/2008 Page 2 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CIVIL EXHIBIT LIST ___ Preliminary Injunction ___

TRO ___

Non-Jury Trial 7022 Date

X

Jury Trial

Case Number

CV 04-0384-PHX

Judge Code

August 31, 2007

Meritage Homes Corporation, et. al. vs. ____ Plaintiff/Petitioner

Greg Hancock, et. al. X Defendant Greg Hancock

Exhibit No. 500

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

Meritage Corporation Code of Ethics, pp. 1 and 2 5/30/01 Master Transaction Agreement 5/30/01 Greg Hancock Employment Agreement, MER002043 3/2/01 Dan Mahoney email to Jon Titus with attached draft EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (29323.0001\MAHONED\PH X\954785.4) with draft EXHIBIT A and B 3/21/01 Dan Mahoney email to Jon Titus with blackline of draft EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (29323.001\MAHONED\PHX\ 954785.6) with draft EXHIBIT A and B

501 502

Objection. Hancock has selected only two pages of document of a sixpage document No objection. No objection as long as the full employment agreement with attachments is included. Objection. Hancock failed to disclose this document or any category of documents containing it during the litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). In addition, the suspected (see below) email contained numerous draft documents whose exclusion is misleading. Objection. Hancock failed to disclose this document or any category of documents containing it during the litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). In addition, the suspected (see below) email contained numerous draft documents whose exclusion is

503

504

8917044.1

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 3 of 17

Exhibit No.

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

505

506

507

EXHIBIT A, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, GHAN000001 EXHIBIT B, INCENTIVE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE for Greg Hancock 5/30/01 LICENSE AGREEMENT 3/23/04 TRADE NAME CERTIFICATION Greg Hancock Personnel File MER002330-383 End of month Project Lot Status Reports, commencing with 6/30/01 (MER004468) through 4/30/05 (MER004549) Numerical summary of Exhibit 510, Curry Deposition Exhibit 49 Meritage Responses to Greg Hancock Requests for Admissions Blow-up of Response 5 to Greg Hancock Requests for Admissions

misleading. No objection.

No objection, assuming we understand correctly which document this is. No objection, assuming we understand correctly which document this is. Objection. Not sure what document this is referring to. Objection. Not relevant since Hancock concealed his OlympicRelated conduct. Fed. R. Evid. 401. No objection.

508 509

510

511

No objection.

512

513

No objection, assuming we understand correctly which document this is. Objection. Response 5 is misleading in isolation and is not relevant since Hancock concealed his OlympicRelated conduct. Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403.

514 515

Deleted by Defense Counsel 10/28/02 email from DeLaCruz to Jon Titus re earnout payments 11-22-02 Letter from Steven No objection.

516
8917044.1

No objection.

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 4 of 17

Exhibit No.

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

517 518

Hilton to Greg Hancock re $180,000 bonus re Suns' settlement 1/8/03 Letter from Larry Seay to Jon Titus re earn-out 7/21/03 Settlement Agreement re earn-out dispute and Meritage check Nos. 500524, 33890, 33889 and 500523

No objection. Objection. This agreement is not relevant to any issue in the case in that it deals with other disputes. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Since one of the other disputes dealt with earn-outs, the jury may confuse that dispute with the instant earn-out dispute, which is different. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Finally, Fed. R. Evid. 408 bars the admissibility of this document as a settlement agreement. No objection

519

520

Press Releases from Meritage web site of 4/20/04, 9/15/04, 10/25/04, 1/6/05 and 1/18/05 Curry Deposition Exhibits 31, 32, 34, 38 and 39

Objection. This evidence is irrelevant and misleading for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine re Testimony and Argument that Plaintiffs Purportedly Failed to Comply with SarbanesOxley Disclosure Obligations (Item #510). Motion in Limine Granted, Order dated April 1, 2008. Exhibit should be excluded. Hancock has selected only portions of documents. As such, the evidence is out of context and misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Objection. Hancock has selected only portions of documents. As such, the evidence is out of context

521

Meritage 12/31/01 Form 10-K, NAV000053, 57

8917044.1

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 5 of 17

Exhibit No.

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

522

Meritage 12/31/02 Form 10-K, NAV000140, 144, 145

and misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Meritage has no objection to an exhibit that is the full 10K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2001. Objection. This evidence is irrelevant and misleading for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine re Testimony and Argument that Plaintiffs Purportedly Failed to Comply with SarbanesOxley Disclosure Obligations (Item #510). Motion in Limine Granted, Order dated April 1, 2008. Exhibit should be excluded. Hancock has selected only portions of documents. As such, the evidence is out of context and misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Objection. This evidence is irrelevant and misleading for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine re Testimony and Argument that Plaintiffs Purportedly Failed to Comply with SarbanesOxley Disclosure Obligations (Item #510). Motion in Limine Granted, Order dated April 1, 2008. Exhibit should be excluded. Hancock has selected only portions of documents. As such, the evidence is out of context and misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Objection. Hancock has selected only portions of documents. As such, the evidence is out of context

523

Press Release re Meritage 4th Quarter and 2003 Year End Results

524

Form 10-K for year ended 12/31/03, pp. 1-8

8917044.1

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 6 of 17

Exhibit No.

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

525

Form 10-K for year ended 12/31/04, pp.3, 5, 7,11

526

Form 10-K for year ended 12/31/05, 3, 6, 12, 15

527

Form 10-K for year ended 12/31/06

and misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Meritage has no objection to an exhibit that is the full 10K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003. Objection. This evidence is irrelevant and misleading for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine re Testimony and Argument that Plaintiffs Purportedly Failed to Comply with SarbanesOxley Disclosure Obligations (Item #510). Motion in Limine Granted, Order dated April 1, 2008. Exhibit should be excluded. Objection. This evidence is irrelevant and misleading for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine re Testimony and Argument that Plaintiffs Purportedly Failed to Comply with SarbanesOxley Disclosure Obligations (Item #510). Motion in Limine Granted, Order dated April 1, 2008. Exhibit should be excluded. Objection. This evidence is irrelevant and misleading for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine re Testimony and Argument that Plaintiffs Purportedly Failed to Comply with SarbanesOxley Disclosure Obligations (Item #510). Motion in Limine Granted, Order dated April 1, 2008. Exhibit should be excluded. Hancock has selected only portions of documents. As such, the evidence

8917044.1

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 7 of 17

Exhibit No.

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

is out of context and misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403. It is noted, however, that Meritage assumes that it has reviewed the correct document. In this respect, Hancock has failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)'s express requirement of an "appropriate identification for each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs requested such identification only to be told that Hancock would not so comply. Objection. Defendants have not identified this document. Requested copy of exhibit and received exhibit labeled 528 on July 11, 2008; however, exhibit received is duplicate of exhibit 531. Objection. This evidence is irrelevant and misleading for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine re Testimony and Argument that Plaintiffs Purportedly Failed to Comply with Sarbanes-Oxley Disclosure Obligations (Item #510). Motion in Limine Granted, Order dated April 1, 2008. Exhibit should be excluded. Hancock has selected only portions of documents. As such, the evidence is out of context and misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403. It is noted, however, that Meritage assumes that it has reviewed the correct document. In this respect, Hancock has failed to comply with
8917044.1

528

Business Wire Release, 7/11/05, 4 pages

529

Form 10-K/A for 1/11/06

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 8 of 17

Exhibit No.

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

530

Summary of Meritage stock price from 5/1/01 through 3/30/04

531

7/6/07 Press Release re impairments

532

Article in Scottsdale Tribune, 1/7/05, re "Meritage reports record year"

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)'s express requirement of an "appropriate identification for each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs requested such identification only to be told that Hancock would not so comply. Objection. Plaintiffs object to any document or testimony about Meritage's stock price. Meritage's stock price is not relevant to any issue of consequence in this litigation. Fed. R. Evid. 401. As such, it appears that Hancock wants to use the stock price somehow to prejudice the jury against Meritage unfairly. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Objection. It appears that this evidence might relate to disclosure issues. If so, this evidence is irrelevant and misleading for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine re Testimony and Argument that Plaintiffs Purportedly Failed to Comply with SarbanesOxley Disclosure Obligations (Item #510). Motion in Limine Granted, Order dated April 1, 2008. Exhibit should be excluded. Objection. It appears that this evidence might relate to disclosure issues. If so, this evidence is irrelevant and misleading for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine re Testimony and Argument that Plaintiffs Purportedly Failed to Comply with SarbanesOxley Disclosure Obligations (Item

8917044.1

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 9 of 17

Exhibit No.

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

533

5/18/06 Press release re resignation of John Landon

#510). Motion in Limine Granted, Order dated April 1, 2008. Exhibit should be excluded. Objection. Paintiffs object to any document or testimony about John Landon's resignation, which is not relevant to any issue of consequence in this litigation. Fed. R. Evid. 401. As such, it appears that Hancock wants to use the resignation somehow to prejudice the jury against Meritage unfairly. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Objection. Hancock has identified only three pages of a 150-page draft document (MER049376-533). Fed. R. Evid. 401 (since it is not the actual "offering memorandum") and 403 (since it is a draft). Objection. Our understanding is the Hancock seeks to introduce omissions from Board Minutes and other Board documents with respect to the Hancock litigation. First, any attorney report to the Board is privileged. Second, Hancock has not asserted any evidence to meet his burden that an omission is meaningful, such as the Minutes would have necessarily reflected that level of detail. Fed. R. Evid. 104(b) and 401. Objection. Hancock has identified only one page of a five page document (MER000246-50). Our understanding is the Hancock seeks to introduce omissions from Board

534

OFFERING MEMORANDUM SUMMARY MER049381, 382, 397 (397 also Hilton Dep. Exhibit 34) 3/6/02 Board of Directors Minutes

535

536

4/30/02 Page 2 of Audit Committee report, MER000247

8917044.1

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 10 of 17

Exhibit No.

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

537

12/12/03 Pages 2 and 3 of Board of Directors Minutes

538

10/13/04 Board of Directors Minutes

Minutes and other Board documents with respect to the Hancock litigation. First, any attorney report to the Board is privileged. Second, Hancock has not asserted any evidence to meet his burden that an omission is meaningful, such as the Minutes would have necessarily reflected that level of detail. Fed. R. Evid. 104(b) and 401. Objection. Hancock has identified only two pages of a three page document (MER000858-62). Our understanding is the Hancock seeks to introduce omissions from Board Minutes and other Board documents with respect to the Hancock litigation. First, any attorney report to the Board is privileged. Second, Hancock has not asserted any evidence to meet his burden that an omission is meaningful, such as the Minutes would have necessarily reflected that level of detail. Fed. R. Evid. 104(b) and 401. Objection. Our understanding is the Hancock seeks to introduce omissions from Board Minutes and other Board documents with respect to the Hancock litigation. First, any attorney report to the Board is privileged. Second, Hancock has not asserted any evidence to meet his burden that an omission is meaningful, such as the Minutes would have necessarily reflected that level of detail. Fed. R. Evid. 104(b) and 401.

8917044.1

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 11 of 17

Exhibit No. 539

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

Blow-up of "derogate or detract" provision from License Agreement

540

541

542 543

544

9/8/03 email from Steve Hilton to John Landon re "dark in the market" MER048287 12/9/04 email from Ron French to Desiree Coats MER043547 7/1/04 email from Larry Seay to French, Zetah MER050527 5/20/04 Martz Agency Creative Brief MER001643 through 645 Meritage Documents re rebranding proposal, MER001658-61, MER050527, memo dated 5/26/05 from Scott Abel re name change

Meritage preserves its objections set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine re Testimony and Argument that the Terms "Derogate" or "Detract" Barred Meritage from Reducing or Changing Its Use of the Hancock Name or Saying It Would Do So in the Future (Item # 507). No objection.

No objection.

No objection. No objection.

545 546 547 548
8917044.1

6/18/04 Conference Report #1 MER001646-649 7/10/04 Ad from Arizona Republic 2/3/04 email from Pidgeon to Titus 2/11/04 Letter from Pidgeon to

Plaintiffs incorporate its Motion in Limine re: Barbara Sorget-Stanton objecting on failure to disclose and Daubert grounds. Ms. Sorget's testimony is also hearsay in violation of Fed. R. Evid. 801, as it is offered by Hancock. Motion in Limine Granted, Order dated April 1, 2008. Exhibit should be excluded. It appears that Defendant is circumventing the Order No objection. No objection. No objection. No objection

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 12 of 17

Exhibit No.

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

549 550 551 552

Titus 2/13/04 Letter from Titus to Pidgeon 2/23/04 Letter from Pidgeon to Titus 2/24/04 Letter from Titus to Pidgeon 3/1/04 Letter from Tellier to Goldfine

No objection No objection No objection Objection. This is a self-serving hearsay letter by proponent's attorney. Fed. R. Evid. 801. Out of complete context it is not relevant to any issue of consequence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. No objection. No objection. No objection.

553 554 555

556 557

2/24/04 Verification of Complaint 9/23/04 First Amended Complaint 2/24/04 Verification and 8/25/04 Declaration by Larry Seay 4/15/05 Second Amended Complaint Meritage Response to Greg Hancock's Request for Production of Documents

No objection. Objection. These include legal and technical objections and would be confusing to the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. (If there is a representation from the Responses that Hancock seeks to admit, we will consider an appropriate stipulation.) Objection. These include legal and technical objections and would be confusing to the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. (If there is a representation from the Responses that Hancock seeks to admit, we will consider an appropriate stipulation.) No objection.

558

Meritage Response to Greg Hancock's Second Requests for Production of Documents

559
8917044.1

Meritage Complaint vs. Titus,

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 13 of 17

Exhibit No.

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

560

Brueckner, et. al., CV200600492 (Maricopa County) 9/30/05 Quarterly Summary of Legal Activities

561

2/13/06 Material Litigation Status Report

562

563 564

12/14/04 Article from Arizona Republic Business Buzz, "Wall Street Darlings" Deleted by Defense Counsel RHH13878-880 Ledger entries and checks re infrastructure at Sundance RHH0163 Photos of Meritage sold out signs

Objection. This is a report from company counsel about the status of certain litigation matters under the responsibility of certain employees within a Division of Meritage and remains subject to the attorney-client privilege. See Meritage's Motion in Limine re to Bar Defendants' Use of Attorney Client Privileged Communications, filed June 26, 2008. Objection. This document is subject to the attorney-client privilege. See Meritage's Motion in Limine re to Bar Defendants' Use of Attorney Client Privileged Communications, filed June 26, 2008. No Objection.

565

566

RHH19107 Disclaimer from Mario Atkins

Objection as introduced by Hancock, because Hancock has not laid the foundation for their admissibility. There is no evidence in the record laying the foundation for when these photographs were taken and for what time period the signs covered. Objection. This document is hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801. SSgt. Atkins will testify at trial, and Hancock can ask whether he signed such a document and circumstances under which he signed it.

8917044.1

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 14 of 17

Exhibit No. 567

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

"CORNWALL TIMELINE"

568 569

570

571 572

573 574 575

6/29/01 Olympic Properties formation documents 9/5/01 Option Agreement from Marionneaux to Olympic Properties 10/17/01 Operating Agreement of Olympic Development, LLC 11/16/01 Letter re Devon failing to fund Olympic 1/18/02 Formation documents of Cavdel, LLC, and Cavalier Properties 1/28/02 Formation documents of Riata West, LLC 3/27/02 Formation documents of Westwind Properties, LLC 3/8/02 Assignment of Marionneaux option to Riata West, LLC 6/26/02 Cornwall to Hancock re Olympic Properties Deleted by Defense Counsel 12/19/02 Formation documents of MTH-Cavalier, LLC by Monterey (Meritage) Deleted by Defense Counsel

Objection. This document is apparently created by Hancock's counsel. While Plaintiffs agree that summarizing the events involving Olympic, this summary is both materially incomplete and misleadingly titled. Fed. R. Evid. 403. No objection. No objection.

No objection.

No objection. No objection.

No objection. No objection. No objection.

576 577 578

No objection.

No objection.

579
8917044.1

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 15 of 17

Exhibit No.

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

580

581 582

583 584

585 586 587 588

12/30/03 Letters re Meritage buying into E.P. King, Westwind, and Riata West 1/31/03 Balance sheet of Westwind Properties 2/25/03 Letter from Cornwall to Cox and Meritage re Centex offer for ½ of Westwind 6/14/01 Letter from Brueckner to Hancock and Cornwall 3/27/02 Property Development Agreement of CavDav and Westwind 9-9-02 Deed to Riata West Cornwall Joint Venture Proposal MER029607-11 12/17/02 Memo from Hilton to Board re Cavalier 2/03 February 2003 Partnership Report MER027840 3/24/03 Notice of Winding Up Olympic 5/5/03 Articles of Termination of Olympic 9/3/03 Fax from Cornwall to Hilton/Cox

No objection.

No objection No objection.

No objection. No objection.

No objection. No objection. No objection. No objection.

589 590 591

No objection. No objection. Objection. This is a letter from Cornwall to Pulte with copies to Steve Hilton and Larry Cox. As such, it is hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801. No objection. No objection. No objection.

592 593 594
8917044.1

Westwind Balance Sheet of 2/29/04 Westwind Balance Sheet of 12/31/05 4/12/05 Email from Carlson to Landon re Westwind

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 16 of 17

Exhibit No. 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607

Marked for ID

Admitted In Evidence

Description

Objection

5/23/06 Supplemental Report of Gregg Curry Deleted by Defense Counsel Deleted by Defense Counsel Deleted by Defense Counsel Deleted by Defense Counsel Selected pages from Meritage 2001 Annual Report Selected pages from Meritage 2002 Annual Report Selected pages from Meritage 2003 Annual Report Selected pages from Meritage 2004 Annual Report Selected pages from Meritage 2005 Annual Report Selected pages from Meritage 2006 Annual Report Selected pages from Meritage 2007Annual Report Project Lot Status Summary

No objection.

No objection. No objection. No objection. No objection. No objection. No objection. No objection. Objection. This appears to be a 1006 Summary, which is based on a flawed and inaccurate report initially created by Defendant Hancock. The underlying data is found in Project Lot Status Reports, which the evidence will establish are inaccurate and unreliable for the purpose used by Defendant Hancock in Exhibit 607. In addition, the various titles and headings are misleading as used in the 1006 summary.

Note: Defendant also designates all exhibits listed by plaintiff, and reserves the right to introduce other exhibits as necessary for the purpose of impeachment

8917044.1

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 593-2

Filed 08/11/2008

Page 17 of 17