Exhibit "H"
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 1 of 116
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS
Cause Number: 2004-0384
Judge Code: 7022
Meritage Home Corporation, et. al v. Greg Hancock, et.al.
1 .Do you own shares of stock in a publicly traded corporation?
2. Are you familiar with Sarbanes-Oxley reporting requirements for publicly traded corporations?
3. Have you purchased or seriously considered purchasing a newly built home in the last ten years?
4. Have you ever purchased a home from Beazer Homes?
5. Have you ever purchased a home from Hancock Homes or Hancock Communities? 6. Have you ever purchased a home from Rick Hancock Homes?
7. Have you ever purchased a home from Meritage Homes? 8. Have you ever purchased a home from Monterey Homes?
9. Have you ever made a waranty claim involving your home construction?
10. Have you ever heard of Robert Sarver?
11. Have you ever served on the Board of Directors of a corporation?
12. Have you ever been employed through a written employment agreement?
13. Have you ever had a dispute with your employer about the terms of your employment?
14. Have you ever terminated your employment because you felt harassed? 15. Have you ever been employed by a company which was purchased or taken over by
another company?
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 2 of 116
16. Have you ever been fired from a job?
17. Have you ever been a party to a written contract which was breached by the other party?
18. Do you believe you can read and understand a company's financial balance sheet?
19. Do you believe that there is too much frivolous litigation in the United States?
20. Have you ever been a witness in a deposition or in the tral of a lawsuit?
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 3 of 116
Exhibit "F"
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 4 of 116
Robert M. Frisbee (#018779)
FRISBEE & BOSTOCK, PLC
2 1747 Morten Ave. E., Suite 108
Phoenix, AZ 85020
3 Telephone: (602) 354-3689
Facsimile: (602) 266-7744
4 rfrisbee~fbplclaw.com
5
Attorneys for Defendants
6 7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case No. CV-04-0384-PHX-ROS
9 Meritage Homes Corporation, et aI.,
10 Plaintiffs,
1 1
EFENDANTS' PROPOSED FINDINGS
v.
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
12 Ricky Lee Hancock, et aI.,
13 Defendants.
14 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS
15 16
17 Based upon the evidence in the record and the testimony provided by the parties at
18 trial before the bench, (and. mindful of the
jury's advisory answer to the unjust enrichment
19 question), the Court hereby issues the following findings of fact and conclusions of law
20 regarding Meritage's unjust enrichment claim against Greg Hancock.
21 FINDINGS OF FACT
22 A.
23
Findings of Fact Related to Olympic
1.
Greg Hancock was employed as President of
Meritage's Hancock
24 Communities division during the summer and fall of2001.
25
2.
During the summer and fall of 200 i, Greg Hancock was entitled to explore
26 personal investment opportunities in real propert holdings, and to invest in them
20420741
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 5 of 116
within limitations ifhe saw fit.
2
3
3. Hancock and Meritage negotiated the terms of
Hancock's employment
agreement, where in one draft Meritage wanted the right of first refusal for any
such investment opportunity.
4
5
4. The final draft of the employment agreement contained no right of first refusal
on the part of Meritage, and Hancock was not obligated to inform Meritage of any
such opportunity by contract or otherwise.
5. Hancock had no obligation to inform Meritage of
6 7
8
his involvement in the
9
10
11
Olympic Properties matter, brought to him by his long-time friend, David
Cornwall.
6. Greg Hancock was never involved in any manner with regard to those parcels
of land known as Westwind and Riata West.
12
13
7. In the fall of 200 l, Greg Hancock was advised that further involvement with
Olympic Properties might constitute a violation of
14
15
his restrictive covenants with
Meritage.
8. After Devon Properties decided to have no further involvement in Olympic
16 17
18 19
Properties due in part to the events of9/ll/0l, Hancock departed from the
Olympic Properties matter and was never again involved therein.
9. Hancock walked away from milIons of dollars of
possible profit rather than
20
21
violate his restrictive covenants with Meritage.
i O. Greg Hancock fully earned and was entitled to all he was paid by Meritage in
22
23
the fonn of salary, bonuses and earn-outs.
B.
Findings of Fact Related to the License Agreement
11. Greg Hancock granted Meritage an exclusive license to use the Hancock
24 25 26
name, "Hancock Communities," "Hancock Homes" and any derivative thereof
from May 31,2001 to May 31,2007.
2042074.1
-2-
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 6 of 116
12. On February 13, 2004, Greg Hancock wrote Meritage stating that he was
2 terminating Meritage's license.
3 13. Greg Hancock was entitled to cancel the license by reason of Merit
age's
4 express plan to reduce the Hancock name, a plan which had already been
5 announced by February 13,2004, and because Meritage did not timely inform
6 Hancock regarding the status of his 2003 earn-out payment.
7 14. After he canceled the license, Greg Hancock assigned the "Hancock" name to
8 his brother, which he was entitled to do.
9 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
10 1. Greg Hancock's conduct described above was entirely lawfuL
11 2. Meritage's claims of
unjust enrichment as to both the Olympic Properties
12 matter and the License Agreement were entirely frivolous. .
13 3. Greg Hancock is entitled to attorneys' fees and expenses related to these
14 claims to be later determined by the Court.
15 4. The bringing of
these claims constituted a violation of Rule 11 by both
16 Meritage and its counseL.
17
18 Based on the foregoing and after a trial,
19
20 IT is ORDERED that Meritage take nothing by its pretended unjust enrichment
21 claims, and that Meritage and its counsel pay attorneys' fees and expenses related to said
22 claims, together with Rule I I sanctions to be determined by the Court.
23
24
25
26
2042074. i
-3-
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 7 of 116
Exhibit "I"
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 8 of 116
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Meritage v Hancock Case No. CV-04-0384-PHX-ROS
PLAINTIFFS' JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE
l. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE ARIZONA COMPANY CALLED
MERIT AGE HOMES?
2. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH GREG HANCOCK?
3. DO YOU HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT MERITAGE HOMES? GREG HANCOCK?
4. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HOMEBUILDER KNOWN AS HANCOCK COMMuNITIES?
5. DO YOU OWN YOUR OWN HOME? IF SO, PLEASE LIST THE BUILDER?
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 9 of 116
6. HA VE YOU EVER LIVED IN OR OWNED A HOME BUILT BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING HOMEBUILDERS?
MERIT
AGE HOMES OF ARIZONA
HANCOCK COMMUNITIES
HANCOCK COMMUNITIES
RICK HANCOCK HOMES
BEAZER HOMES
WATT
HANCOCK HOMES
7. HA VE YOU OR AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER EVER WORKED FOR ANY OF THE HOMEBUILDERS THAT YOU LISTED IN RESPONSE TO NUMBER 6 ABOVE? IF SO, WHEN AND IN WHAT CAPACITY DID YOU
OR YOUR F AMIL Y MEMBER WORK FOR OR WITH THE HOMEBUILDER YOU IDENTIFIED?
8. HA VE YOU EVER BOUGHT A HOME BEFORE IT WAS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED? PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT THE BUILDING PROCESS AND YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE BUILDER.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 10 of 116
9. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF HOME BUILDERS IN GENERAL.
10. DO YOU OWN YOUR OWN BUSINESS? BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE NA TURE OF YOUR BUSINESS AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE YOU EMPLOY.
I 1. IF YOU ARE CURRNTLY EMPLOYED (NOT RETIRED OR BETWEEN. JOBS), DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE COMPENSATED F AIRL Y FOR ALL THE WORK YOU DO? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 11 of 116
12. DO YOU KNOW OR AR YOU IN ANY WAY FAMILIAR WITH THE FOLLOWING PARTIES, WITNESSES OR ATTORNEYS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE:
(a)
Greg Hancock
(b)
(c)
Rick Hancock
Steve Hilton
John Landon
(d)
(e)
Jim Arneson
Larry Canarelli
Dave Cornwall
Gregg Curry
(f) (g)
(h)
(i)
Eugene Cole
(j)
(k)
(I)
Kurt Brueckner
Scott Keeffe
lan McCarthy
Grant Woods
(m)
(n) (0)
(p)
Dan Goldfine
Rick Erickson
Robert Frisbee
13. ONE OF THE ATTORNYS IN THIS CASE, GRANT WOODS, SERVED AS ARIZONA ATTORNY GENERAL FROM 199 1 -99. WOULD YOU
BE ABLE TO BEGIN THE CASE WITH AN OPEN MIN TO ALL PARTIES, REGARDLESS OF THE ATTORNYS INVOLVED IN THE CASE?
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 12 of 116
II. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD YOU USE TO DESCRIBE YOURSELF (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)?:
o Analytical
o Careful
o Compassionate
o Creative
o Emotional
o Judgmental
o Old-fashioned
o Practical
o Environmentalist 0 Generous
o Impulsive
o Kind
o Open-minded
o Private
o Skeptical
o Logical
o Naïve
o Outspoken
o Selfish
o Opinionated
o Quiet
o Shy
o Technical
o Smart
o Trusting
o Strict
o Visual
o Thoughtful
14. Do you presently subscribe to, or regularly read, any of
the following
publications?
_ _ _ _ Consumer Reports Road & Truck Magazine Car & Driver Magazine U.S. News & World Report
The Wall Street Journal .
_ National Geographic
_ Forbes Magazine
_ Money Magazine
_ Arizona Republic
New York Times _ US Magazine
_ People Magazine _ New Republic Magazine
Other:
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 13 of 116
Do you reguarly watch or listen to any of
the following?
CNN Fox News Channel MSNBC Local News
_ Other television news programs:
KTAR KFYI NPR KNIX KMLE Other radio stations:
1 5. DO YOU THINK IT is OKAY FOR AN EXECUTIVE TO SPEND SUBSTANTIAL PERIODS OF TIME HANDLING PERSONAL INVESTMENT MATTERS AT WORK? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR
ANSWER.
l6. RANK FROM 1 (MOST LIBERAL) TO LO (MOST CONSERVATIVE)
WHAT YOU CONSIDER YOUR POLITICAL LEANINGS TO BE.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 14 of 116
l7. RANK FROM 1 (MOST LIBERAL) TO LO (MOST CONSERVATIVE) WHA T YOUR BEST FRIEND CONSIDERS YOUR POLITICAL
LEANINGS TO BE?
i 8. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOURSELF?
NONPOLITICAL
CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN
MODERATE REPUBLICAN
LIBERAL REPUBLICAN
CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT
MODERATE DEMOCRAT
LIBERAL DEMOCRAT
INDEPENDENT LIBERTARIAN
GREEN PARTY
19. HA VE YOU EVER BEEN A STOCKHOLDER OR OWNR OF A
BUSINESS? PLEASE PROVIDE A SHORT DESCRIPTION.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 15 of 116
20. DO YOU UNERSTAND THE ROLE OF COMPANY LEADERS AND MANAGEMENT VERSUS OWNRS AND SHAREHOLDERS OF COMPANIES? IF SO, WHAT IS YOUR UNERSTANDING?
2 1 . DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ARIZONA COMPANIES SUCH AS
MERIT AGE HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPECT THAT ITS EXECUTIVES WILL COMPLY WITH THE DUTIES THEY AGREE TO?
22. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT EXECUTIVES WHO LEAD BUSINESSES ASSUME A DUTY TO PURSUE EVERY OPPORTUNITY THAT WILL HELP THE BUSINESS TO PROFIT? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 16 of 116
23. DO YOU GENERALLY BELIEVE THAT A COMPANY PRESIDENT OWES DUTIES TO THE COMPANY'S SHAREHOLDERS?
24. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IN RETURN FOR ENOUGH MONEY, EXECUTIVES CAN AGREE TO NOT COMPETE AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYERS, EVEN FOR A FEW YEARS AFTER THE EMPLOYMENT ENDS?
25. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PERSONS HAVE A DUTY TO LIVE BY BOTH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE AGREEMENTS THEY MAKE?
26. DO YOU UNERSTAND THAT ADVERTISING INCLUDES MANY
THINGS 'LIKE NEWSPAPER ADS AND IN-PERSON SALES PITCHES?
27. DO YOU UNERSTAND THAT HOMEBUILDERS HAVE A DUTY
NOT TO MAKE FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS DURNG THOSE IN-PERSON SALES PITCHES?
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 17 of 116
28. ASSUMING THAT HOMEBUILDER B MISLEADS CUSTOMERS TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE PART OF HOMEBUILDER A, AR YOU WILLING TO A WARD HOMEBUILDER A DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF NET PROFITS HOMEBUILDER B MADE, IF THE COURT INSTRUCTED YOU TO DO SO?
29. IF A FORMER EMPLOYEE HAS AGREED NOT TO COMPETE AGAINST HIS OR HER EMPLOYEE, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT HE OR SHE CAN ASSIST A CLOSE RELATIVE IN DOING SO?
30. (FOR THOSE WHOSE QUESTIONNAIRES SHOW INVOLVEMENT IN PRIOR LITIGATION) IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR PRIOR EXPERIENCE IN LITIGATION THAT YOU FEEL IS IMPORTANT TO SHARE WITH THE COURT OR THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS
CASE?
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 18 of 116
3 1 . (FOR THOSE WHOSE QUESTIONNAIRES SHOW INVOLVEMENT IN PRIOR LITIGATION) OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN A CIVIL LAWSUIT, DID THE LAWSUIT INVOLVE A DISPUTE OVER EMPLOYMENT OR INTERPRETATION OF A WRITTEN AGREEMENT? IF SO, DESCRIBE MORE SPECIFICALLY THE
NA TURE OF THE DISPUTE.
32. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A COMPANY PRESIDENT OWES A DUTY TO THE COMPANY TO PRESENT CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES, SUCH AS NEW BUSINESS VENTURS TO PROFIT THAT ARE IN THE NORMAL LINE OF WORK THAT THAT COMPANY DOES?
33. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE NOTION OF "SELF-DEALING" IN BUSINESS? IF SO, WHAT IS YOUR UNERSTANDING OF SELF DEALING?
33. DO YOU HAVE ANY BUMPER STICKERS ON YOUR PERSONAL VEHICLES? IF YES, WHAT DO THEY SAY?
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 19 of 116
34. WOULD YOU INITIALLY TEND TO FAVOR AN INDIVIDUAL OVER A CORPORATION IN A LAWSUIT? IF YES, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO A WARD DAMAGES TO THE CORPORATION IF THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HAD WRONGED THE CORPORATION?
35. IF THE EVIDENCE IN A CASE PROVED DAMAGES IN THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, WOULD YOU BE HESITANT TO A WARD
THAT AMOUNT BECAUSE THE AWARD WAS SO LARGE?
2039056
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 20 of 116
Exhibit "J"
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 21 of 116
Defendant Proposed Juror Questionnaire
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 22 of 116
CONFIDENTIAL JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE
You are required by law to complete and sign this form, which is not a public record and wil be destoyed by the court as soon as practicable after you are excused. Answer all questions, even if the answer is "none." Complete answers help ensure selection of fair and impartial juries.
PLEASE PRINT YOUR ANSWERS ON THIS FORM IN BLACK INK AND BRING IT WITH YOU WHEN YOU APPEAR FOR JURY DUTY. YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN, UNDERSTAND ENGLISH, AND BE 18 OR OLDER TO SERVE. ARE YOU QUALIFIED? a Yes a No
YOUR BACKGROUND INFORMATION
a Female a Male
Name
Cit/State
Zip Code
Place of Birth
Age
,. ..
II
ci
Do
EDUCATION: Highest grade completed in school?
CURRENT OR PAST WORK AND/OR SCHOOL:
(Please check all that apply)
Current Employer (or Last Employer ij not currently employed
a Employed a Unemployed a Self-employed a Part-time
a At home a Retired
a Student a Other
Type of Business Cit/State
Your Job or Occupation
HOUSEHOLD: Your Status (Please check one) o Single a Married a Domestic Partner a Separated a Divorced a Widowed
Are you a parent or guardian of any children? a No 0 Yes: Please list their ages
YOUR SPOUSE OR PARTNER
Age
Name
N
EDUCATION: Highest grade he/she completed in school?
..
II
ci
Do
CURRENT OR PAST WORK AND/OR SCHOOL: (Please check all that apply to him/her)
Current Employer (or Last Employer ij not currntly employed
o Employed 0 Unemployed o Self-employed a Part-time
o At home a Retired
o Student 0 Other
Type of Busine Cit/State
Job or Occupation
YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE LAW (please check all that appiY
Have you or anyone in your household or family ever had any of the
following experiences with the law? a No 0 Yes
o Been arested? a Been charged with a crime? 0 Been convicted of a crime? 0 Been a crime victim?
a Been sued? 0 Filed a lawsuit? 0 Been a witness in a civiVcriminal case? a Been seatedinjunction, etc.)? order, on a jury?
o Been served with a court order? 0 Sought a court order (restraining order, stay-away
If "Yes, " please describe:
II
i;"" Have you or anyone in your household or family ever worked
for any of the following? a No 0 Yes
a: 0 Law enforcement agency? 0 Court system? employer? law-related
ci 0 Corrections/detention system? 0 Other
Do If "Yes, " please describe:
Is there anything else in your background, experience, employment, training, education, knowledge, or beliefs that might affect
your abilty to be a fair and Impartial juror? 0 No 0 Yes
If "Yes, " please describe:
JUROR'S DECURATION: I certify that the information I have supplied on this form is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand
that a willful misrepresentation or omission of a material fact on this form is a crime, which may be punished by a fine of not more than $2,000
upon conviction.
Dale
Signature (Do Not Prit)
Form CJQ 2007
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 23 of 116
Exhibit "K"
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 24 of 116
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Meritage Homes Corporation, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. CV -04-0384-PHX-ROS
PROPOSED VERDICT FORMS
Ricky Lee Hancock, et aI.,
Defendants.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 25 of 116
VERDICT FORM lA
(Use if You Find For Meritage on its Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim)
We the jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find in favor of Meritage on its Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim, and we find
Meri tage' s full damages to be $ . We also find that
Meritage is entitled to punitive damages in the amount of
$
(1) (2) (3) (4) (9)
(5) (6)
(7) (8)
FOREPERSON
- 2-
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 26 of 116
VERDICT FORM 1B
(Use if You Find Against Meritage on its Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim)
We the jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find against Meritage on its Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim.
(1)
(2)
(5)
(6) (7) (8)
(3) (4) (9)
FOREPERSON
-3-
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 27 of 116
VERDICT FORM 2A
(Use if You Find For Meritage on Its Claim For Usurpation of Corporate Opportunities)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do fhid in favor of Meritage on its Usurpation of Corporate Opportunities Claim.
We find Meritage's actual damages to be $ . We also
find that Meritage is entitled to punitive damages in the amount of
$
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(9)
(5)
(6) (7) (8)
FOREPERSON
- 4-
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 28 of 116
VERDICT FORM 2B (U se if You Find Against Meritage on Its Claim For Usurpation of Corporate
. Opportunities)
We the jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find against Meritage on its Usurpation of Corporate Opportunities Claim.
(1) (2)
(5)
(6) (7) (8)
(3) (4) (9)
FOREPERSON
-5-
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 29 of 116
VERDICT FORM 3A
(Use if You Find For Meritage on Its Fraud in the Concealment Claim)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find in favor of Meritage in its Fraud in the Concealment Claim. We find
Meritage's actual damages to be $ . We also find that
Meritage is entitled to punitive damages in the amount of
$
(1)
(5) (6)
(2) (3) (4) (9)
(7)
(8)
FOREPERSON
-6-
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 30 of 116
VERDICT FORM 3B
(Use If You Find Against Meritage on its Fraud In The Concealment Claim)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find against Meritage on its Fraud in the Concealment Claim.
(1) (2)
(3) (4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
FOREPERSON
-7-
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 31 of 116
VERDICT FORM 4A
(Use If You Find For Meritage on Its Breach Of Contract Claim Against Greg Hancock)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find in favor of Meritage on its Breach of Contract Claim. We find Meritage's
actual damages to be $
(1) (2) (3) (4) (9)
(5)
(6) (7)
(8)
FOREPERSON
-8 -
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 32 of 116
VERDICT FORM 4B (Use If You Find Against Meritage on Its Breach of Contract Claim Against Greg Hancock)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find against Meritage on its Breach of Contract Claim.
(1)
(5) (6) (7) (8)
(2)
(3) (4)
(9)
FOREPERSON
- 9-
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 33 of 116
VERDICT FORM 5A
(U se If You Find For Meritage on Its Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Claim Against Greg Hancock)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find in favor of Meritage on its Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith
and Fair Dealing Claim. We find Meritage' s actual damages to be
$
(1) (2) (3) (4) (9)
(5) (6)
(7)
(8)
FOREPERSON
- 10-
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 34 of 116
VERDICT FORM 5B
(Use If You Find Against Meritage on Its Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith . And Fair Dealing Claim Against Greg Hancock)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find against Meritage on its Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing Claim.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(7) (8)
(9)
FOREPERSON
- 11 -
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 35 of 116
VERDICT FORM 6A
(Use If You Find For
Meritage on Its Conversion Claim Against Greg Hancock)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find in favor of Meritage on its Conversion Claim. We find Meritage's actual
damages to be $ We also find that Meritage is
entitled to punitive damages in the amount of $
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(9)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
FOREPERSON
- 12 -
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 36 of 116
VERDICT FORM 6B
(Use If You Find Against Meritage on Its Conversion Claim Against Greg Hancock)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find against Meritage on its Conversion Claim.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(9)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8)
FOREPERSON
- 13 -
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 37 of 116
VERDICT FORM 7 A
(Use If You Find For Meritage on Its Intentional Interference with the License Agreement Claim Against J2H2, LLC)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find in favor of Meritage on its Intentional Interference with the License
Agreement Claim. We find Meritage's actual damages to be
$
We also find that Meritage is entitled to punitive
damages in the amount of $
(1) (2)
(3)
(5) (6) (7) (8)
(4) (9)
FOREPERSON
- 14 -
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 38 of 116
VERDICT FORM 7B
(Use If You Find Against Meritage on Its Intentional Interference with the License Agreement Claim Against J2H2, LLC)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our oaths, do find against Meritage on its Intentional Interference with the License
Agreement Claim.
(1)
(2)
(5) (6) (7)
(8)
(3) (4)
(9)
FOREPERSON
- 15 -
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 39 of 116
VERDICT FORM 8A
(Use If You Find For Meritage on Its Lanham Act Violations Claim Against Greg Hancock)
We the Jury, duly effpanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find in favor of Meótage on its Lanham Act Violations Claim. We find caused by Greg Meritage's actual damages to be $
Hancock.
(1) (2)
(5)
(6) (7) (8)
(3)
(4) (9)
FOREPERSON
- 16 -
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 40 of 116
VERDICT FORM 8B
(U se If You Find Against Meritage onHancock) Act Violations Claim Against Greg Its Lanham
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the ,above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find against Meritage on its Lanham Act Violations Claim.
(1) (2) (3)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(4)
(8)
(9)
FOREPERSON
- 17 -
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 41 of 116
VERDICT FORM 8C
(D se If You Find For Meritage on Its Lanham Act Violations Claim Against J2H2, LLC)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find in favor of Meritage on its Lanham Act Violations Claim. We find
Meritage's actual damages to be $ caused by J2H2,
LLC.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(9)
(5) (6) (7) (8)
FOREPERSON
- 18 -
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 42 of 116
VERDICT FORM 8D
(Use If You Find Against Meritage on Its Lanham Act Violations Claim Against J2H2, LLC)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find against Meritage on its Lanham Act Violations Claim.
(1)
(5) (6) (7) (8)
(2)
(3) (4)
(9)
FOREPERSON
- 19 -
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 43 of 116
VERDICT FORM 9A
(Use If You Find For Meritage on Its State Unfair Competition Claim Against Greg Hancock)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find in favor of Meritage on its State Unfair Competition Claim. We find
Meritage's actual damages to be $
. We also find that
Meritage is entitled to punitive damages in the amount of
$
(1) (2) (3)
(4)
(5)
(6) (7) (8)
(9)
FOREPERSON
- 20-
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 44 of 116
VERDICT FORM 9B
(Use If You Find Against Meritage On Hancock) Its State Unfair Competition Claim Against Greg
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find against Meritage on its State Unfair Competition Claim.
(1) (2)
(5) (6) (7) (8)
(3)
(4) (9)
FOREPERSON
- 21 -
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 45 of 116
VERDICT FORM lOA
(Use If You Find For Meritage on Its Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim Against Greg Hancock)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find in favor of Meritage on its Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim. We
find Meritage' s actual damages to be $
and its
exemplary damages to be $
actual damages).
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(not more than two times the
(6) .
(7) (8)
(9)
FOREPERSON
- 22-
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 46 of 116
VERDICT FORM lOB
(Use If You Find Against Meritage on Its Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim Against Greg Hancock)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find against Meritage on its Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claim.
(1)
(2)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(3) (4) (9)
(8) .
FOREPERSON
- 23 -
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 47 of 116
VERDICT FORM llA
(Use If You Find For
Meritage on Its Intentional Interference with Prospective Contractual Advantage Claim Against Greg Hancock)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our
oaths, do find in favor of Meritage on its Intentional Interference with Prospective
Contractual Advantage Claim. We find Meritage's actual damages to be
$
We also find that Meritage is entitled to punitive
damages in the amount of $
(1)
(2)
(5) (6)
(3) (4)
(7) (8)
(9)
FOREPERSON
- 24-
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 48 of 116
VERDICT FORM 11 B
(Use If You Find Against Meritage on Its Intentional Interference with Prospective Contractual Advantage Claim Against Greg Hancock)
We the Jury, duly empanelled and sworn in the above entitled action, upon our oaths, do find against Meritage on its Intentional Interference with Prospective
Advantage Claim.
0)
(2) (3)
(5) (6)
(7) (8)
(4)
(9)
FOREPERSON
- 25 -
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 49 of 116
Exhibit "L"
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 544-4 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 50 of 116
Dan W. Goldfine (#018188) Richard G. Erickson (#019066)
2
3
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
4
5
One Arizona Center 400 East Van Buren Street Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Telephone: (602) 382-6000 Facsimile: (602) 382-6070
d oldfine swlaw.com rerickson swlaw.com
6
7
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
and
9 10
11
Grant Woods, Esq. (#006106) GRANT WOODS, P.C. 1726 North Seventh Street Phoenix, Arizona 85006
Telephone: (602) 258-2599
Facsimile: (602) 258-5070 gwCigrantwoodsJ?c.net Attorneys for Plaintiffs
~ l:t" OJ i:;?
~
12
13
S ;'0.' .~.. ~g:;§ 14 ..LL ,;i:a:
-- Vluigc
eo u. e- II ,..1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
_~.J 0 ~ ~~
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARZONA
Meritage Homes Corporation, et ai., Case No. CV-04-0384-PHX-ROS
or ~ i:'¡:~ 15
-- :s~~~
Q3 g.ë t5 ~i "
o
16
Plaintiffs,
17
EXHIBIT "A" TO
v.
18
Ricky Lee Hancock, et ai.,
19
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED TRIAL EXHIBITS
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver)
Defendants.
20
(Assigned to the
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 21 AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS
22
23
24
25
26 27 28
29323.0078\GOLDFIDIPHX\2047265. i
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 51 of 116
EXHIBIT "A"
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 544-4 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 52 of 116
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
CIVIL EXHmIT LIST
_ Preliminary Injunction _ TRO _ Non-Jury Trial i Jury Trial
Case Number CV 04-0384-PHX Judge Code 7022 Date August 31, 2007
Meritage Homes Corporation, et. aL. vs. Greg Hancock, et. aL.
Plaintiff/Petitioner i Defendant Greg Hancock
Exhibit No.
500.
Marked
Admitted
In Evidence
forlD
Description
Objection
Objection. Meritage
Meritage Corporation assumes that it has Code of Ethics, pp. I and 2 reviewed the correct
document(RHHOO 15762). In this respect,
Hancock has failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)'s express requirement of an
"appropriate identification
fo each document or
exhibit." Plaíntiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
501.
Master Transaction Agreement
5/30/01
Hancock has selected only two pages of document of a six-page document No objection. 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.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 53 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for ID
Admitted
In
Description
Objection
Evidence
P. 26(a)'s express
requirement of an
"appropriate identification
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply. i
502.
5/30/01 Greg Hancock
Employment Agreement
No objection as long as the full employment
agreement with
MER002043
503.
attachments is included.
3/2/01 Dan Mahoney email to Jon Titus with attached draft EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (29323.000 1 \MAHONED\ PHX\954785.4) with draft EXHIBIT A and B
Objection. Hancock
failed to disclose this document or any category of documents containing
it during the litigation.
Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(l)(B). In addition,
the suspected (see below) email contained numerous draft documents whose exclusion is misleading.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
i Meritage preserves all confidentiality objections, which will be handled through the procedures
identified in the Joint Proposed PretriaL. As such, Meritage wil not restate these objections here.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 54 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for ID
Admitted
In
Description
Objection
requested such
Evidence
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
504.
3/21/01 Dan Mahoney
email to Jon Titus with blackline of draft EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (29323.001\MAHONED\P HX\954785.6) with draft EXHIBIT A and B
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. 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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
505.
EXHIBIT A, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES,
GHANOOOOOI
No objection.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 55 of 116
Exhibit No.
506.
Marked for ID
Admitted
In Evidence
Description
Objection
EXHIBIT B,-INCENTIVE COMPENSA nON SCHEDULE for Greg Hancock
No objection, assumign we understand correctly which document this is.
.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
507.
5/30/01 LICENSE AGREEMENT
No objection, assuming we understand correctly which document this is.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 56 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for 10
Admitted
In
Description
Objection
not so comply.
Evidence
508.
3/23/04 TRADE NAME CERTIFICATION
Objection. Not sure what
document this is referring to.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be
told that Hancock would not so comply.
509.
Greg Hancock Personnel File MER002330-383
Objection. Not relevant since Hancock concealed
his Olympic-Related
conduct. Fed. R.Evid.
401.
510.
End of month Project Lot Status Reports, commencing with 6/30/01 (MER004468) through
4/30/05 (MER004549)
No objection.
511.
Numerical summary of Exhibit 410, Curry Deposition Exhibit 49
Meritage Responses to Greg Hancock Requests
No objection.
512.
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 57 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
Admitted
In Evidence
forID
Description
for Admissions
Objection
which document this is.
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
document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
fo each
requested such
identification only to be
told that Hancock would not so comply.
513.
Blow-up of
Response 5 to
Greg Hancock Requests for Admissions
Objection. Response 5 is
misleading in isolation
and is not relevant since Hancock concealed his Olympic-Related conduct. Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403.
Objection. These include
514.
Meritage Responses to Greg Hancock's Second Request for Production of Documents
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 wil consider an
appropriate stipulation.)
It is noted, however, that Meritage assumes that it
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 58 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for ID
Admitted
In
Description
Objection
Evidence
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
515.
10128/02 email from DeLaCruz to Jon Titus re
earn-out payments
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
which document this is.
It is noted, however, that Meritage assumes that it has reviewed the correct document. In this respect,
Hancockhas failed to
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)'s express requirement of an
"appropriate identification
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
to be told that Hancock would
identification only
not so comply.
516.
11-22-02 Letter from Steven Hilton to Greg Hancock re $180,000 bonus re Suns' settlement
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
which document this is.
It is noted, however, that
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 59 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for ID
Admitted
In
Description
Objection
.
Evidence
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
517.
1/8/03 Letter from Larr Seay to Jon Titus re earnout
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
which document this is.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
518.
7/21/03 Settlement
Agreement re earn-out
Objection. This
agreement is not relevant dispute and Meritage to any issue in the case in check Nos. 500524, 33890, that it deals with other
33889 and 500523
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 60 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for ID
Admitted
In
Description
Objection
disputes. Fed. R. Evid.
401. Since one of the
Evidence
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. Finaly, Fed. R. Evid;
408 bars the admissibility ofthis document as a settlement agreement.
519.
Press Releases from Meritage web site of
4/20/04, 9/15/04, 10/25/04,
1/6/05 and 1/18/05
No objection, assuming we understand correctly which document this is.
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
fa each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
520.
Curr Deposition Exhibits
3 i, 32, 34, 38 and 39
Objection. Hancock has
selected only portions of
documents. As. such, the evidence is out of context
and misleading. Fed. R.
Evid. 403. This evidence
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 61 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
Admitted
In Evidence
forID
Description
Objection
is irrelevant and misleading for the reasons
set forth in Plaintiffs'
Motion in Limine fe Testimony and Argument that Plaintiffs Purportedly Failed to Comply with Sarbanes-Oxley
Disclosure Obligations
(Item #510).
521.
Meritage 12/31/01 Form 10-K, NAV000053, 57
Objection. Hancock has
selected only portions of documents. As such, the
evidence is out of context
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.
522.
Meritage 12/31/02 Form
10-K, NAVOOOI40, 144,
145
Objection. Hancock has
selected only portions of documents. As such, the
evidence is out of context
and misleading. Fed. R.
Evid. 403. 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).
523.
Press Release re Meritage
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 62 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
Admitted
In
forID
Description
4th Quarter and 2003 Year
Objection
Objection. Hancock has
Evidence
End Results
selected only portions of documents. As such, the evidence is out of context
and misleading. Fed. R.
Evid. 403. 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).
524.
Form 10-K for year ended
12/31/03, pp. 1-8
Objection. Hancock has. selected only portions of . documents. As such, the
evidence is out of context
and misleading. Fed. R.
Evid. 403. Meritage has
no objection to an exhibit that is the fuU 10K for the
fiscal year ending
December 31, 2003.
525.
Form 10- K for year ended 12/31/04
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).
526.
Form 10- K for year ended
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 63 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
Admitted
In Evidence
forID
Description
12/31/05
Objection
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).
527.
Form 10-K for year ended
12/31/06
Objection. Hancock has selected only portions of documents. As such, the evidence is out of context
and misleading. Fed. R.
Evid.403. 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).
528.
Business Wire Release,
7/11/05,4 pages
Objection. Not sure what document this is referring
to.
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.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 64 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
Admitted
In
forlD
Description
Objection
Evidence
P. 26(a)'s express requirement of an
"appropriate identification
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
529.
Form lO-K1A for 1/11/06
Objection. Hancock has selected only portions of documents. As such, the evidence is out of context
and misleading. Fed. R.
Evid.403. 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).
530.
Summary of Meritage stock price from 5/1/01
through 3/30/04
Objection. Not sure what document this is referring
to.
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
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 65 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for ID
Admitted
In
Description
Objection
"appropriate identification
Evidence
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
Plaintiffs nevertheless 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.
531.
7/6/07 Press Release re impairments
Objection. Not sure what
document this is referring to.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 66 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
forlD
Admitted In Evidence
Description
Objection
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
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).
532.
Article in Scottsdale Tribune, 1/7/05, re "Meritage reports record year"
Objection. Not sure what
document this is referring to.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
It appears that this
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 67 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for ID
Admitted In Evidence
Description
Objection
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 #5 i 0).
533.
5/18/06 Press release re Objection. Not sure what resignation of John Landon document this is referring to.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
534.
OFFERING MEMORANDUM
SUMRY MER04938 1,
382,397 (397 also Hilon
Dep. Exhibit 34)
Objection. Hancock has identified only three pages 50-page draft of a I
document (~R049376533): Fed. R. Evid. 40 I .
(since it is not the actual "offering memorandum")
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 68 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for ID
Admitted
In
Description
Objection
Evidence
and 403 (since it is a draft).
535.
3/6/02 Board of Minutes
Directors
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.
536.
4/30/02 Page 2 of Audit Committee report,
MEROO0247
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 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,
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 69 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
Admitted
In
forlD
Description
Objection
Evidence
537.
such as the Minutes would have necessarily reflected that level of detaiL. Fed. R. Evid. 104(b) and 401. Objection. Hancock has 12/12/03 Pages 2 and 3 of identified only two pages Board of Directors of a three page document Minutes
(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.
538.
10/13/04 Board of
Directors Minutes
1 04(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
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 70 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for ID
Admitted In Evidence
Description
Objection
meet his burden that an
omission is meaningful,
539.
Blow-up of
"derogate or
detract" provision from License Agreement
such as the Minutes would have necessarily reflected that level of detaiL. Fed. R. Evid. 104(b) and 401. This evidence is irrelevant and misleading for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine re Testimony and Argument that the Tèrms "Derogate" òr "Detract"
Barred Meritage from Reducing or Changing Its
Use of
540.
9/8/03 email from Steve
the Hancock Name or Saying It Would Do So in the Future (Item # 507). No objection.
Hilton to John Landon re "dark in the market" MER048287
541.
12/9/04 email from Ron French to Desiree Coats MER043547
7/1/04 email from Larr Seay to French, Zetah MER050527
5/20/04 Martz Agency
No obj ection.
No objection.
542.
No objection.
543.
Creative Brief MER001643 through 645
Barbara (Sorget) Stanton
expert report and all
544.
Plaintiffs incorporate its Motion in Limine re:
Barbara Sorget-Stanton
attachments and exhibits
objecting on failure to
disclose arid Daubert
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 71 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for ID
Admitted In Evidence
Description
Objection
grounds. Ms. Sorgets testimony is also hearsay
in violation of
Fed. R.
545.
6/18/04 Conference
Report # 1 MEROO 1646-
Evid. 801, as it is offered by Hancock. No objection.
649
546.
7/10/04 Ad from Arizona Republic
No objection. 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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
547.
2/3/04 email from Pidgeon to Titus
No objection. 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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only tobe told that Hancock would
.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 72 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
Admitted
In
forlD
Description
Objection
Evidence
548. 2/11/04 Letter from
not so comply. No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
Pidgeon to Titus
which document this is.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
549.
2/13/04 Letter from Titus to Pidgeon
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
which dqcument this is.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 73 of 116
Exhibit No.
550.
Marked
forlD
Admitted In Evidence
Description
2/23/04 Letter from Pidgeon to Titus
Objection
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
which document this is.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be
told that Hancock would
551.
2/24/04 Letter from Titus to Pidgeon
not so comply. No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
which document this is.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
552.
3/1/04 Letter from Teller
?????????
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 74 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
Admitted
In
forID
Description
to Goldfine
Objection
Evidence
2/24/04 Verified Complaint CV04 0384PHXROS 9/23/04 First Amended Complaint
553.
No objection.
554.
555.
No objection.
Disclosure Statement verified by Larry Seay
No such document, with a verification, exists. Plaintiffs therefore object
to the mischaracterization.
556.
4/15/05 Second Amended Complaint
Fed. R. Evid. 403. No objection.
Objection. These include
557.
Meritage Response to Greg legal and technical Hancock's Request for objections and would be Production of Documents confusing to the jury.
Fed. R. Evid. 403. (If
there is a representation from the Responses that Hancock seeks to admit, we wil consider an appropriate stipulation.)
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 75 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for 10
Admitted In Evidence
Description
Objection
told that Hancock would
not so comply.
558.
Meritage Response to Greg legal and technical Hancock's Second objections and would be Requests for Production of confusing to the jury. Documents
Fed. R. Evid. 403. (If
Objection. These include
there is a representation from the Responses that Hancock seeks to admit, we wil consider an appropriate stipulation.)
It is noted, however, that Meritage assumes that it hàs 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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would not so comply.
559.
Meritage Complaint vs. Titus, Brueckner, et. aI., CV2006-00492 (Maricopa County)
Objection. This is a draft complaint that was inadvertently disclosed and remains subject to the
attorney-client privilege.
560.
9/30/05 Quarterly
Summary of Legal
Activities
Objection. This is a report from company counsel about the status of certain litigation matters
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 76 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
Admitted
In
forID
Description
under
Objection
Evidence
the responsibilty of
Merit age
certain employees within
a Division of
and remains subject to the attorney-client privilege.
561.
2/13/06 Material Litigation Objection. It should be Status Report noted that Plaintiffs are unsure which specific
document Hancock is
referring. In this respect,
Hancock has failed to
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)'s express requirement of an
"appropriate identìfcation
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
562.
12/14/04 Article from Objection. Not sure what Arizona Republic Business document this is referring Buzz, "Wall Street to. Darlings"
In this respect, Hancock has failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)'s express requirement of an
"appropriate identification
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
563.
2/3/04 Article re Hancock
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 77 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for ID
Admitted
In
Description
Objection
Evidence
Communities assisting
U.S. troops
This evidence is irrelevant
and misleading for the
reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine re Testimony and Argument that Plaintiffs Purportedly Stole American Express Miles
(Item # 520).
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
.
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
.564.
RHH13878-880 Ledger entries and checks re infrastructure at Sundance
Objection as introduced by Hancock, since each of the various documents are hearsay, and Hancock has
not laid the foundation for
their admissibilty.
565.
RHH0163 Photos of Meritage sold out signs
There is no evidence in
the record laying the
foundation for when these photographs were taken and for what time period
the signs covered.
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 78 of 116
Exhibit No.
566.
Marked
for 10
Admitted
In Evidence
Description
Objection
RHH19l07 Disclaimer from Mario Atkins
Objection. This
document is hearsay.
Fed. R. Evid. 801. SSgt.
Atkins wil testify at trial, and Hancock can ask whether he signed such a
document and
circumstances under
which he signed it.
567.
"CORNWALL
TIMELIN"
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.
568.
6/29/01 Olympic Properties formation documents
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
which documents this are.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 79 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
forlD
Admitted In Evidence
Description
Objection
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
569.
9/5/01 Option
Agreement
from Marionneaux to
Olympic Properties
No objection, assuming we understand correctly which document this is.
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 fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
570.
10/17/01 Articles of Olympic Development,
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
LLC fied
which document this is.
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
. fo each document or
exhibit." Plaintiffs
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 80 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
Admitted
In
forlD
Description
Objection
requested such
Evidence
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so complv.
571.
11/16/01 Letter re Devon failing to fund Olympic
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
which document this is.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
572.
1/18/02 Formation
documents of Cavdel, LLC, and Cavalier Properties
;
No objection, assuming we understand correctly which documents these
are.
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
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 81 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked for ID
Admitted In Evidence
Description
Objection
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
573.
1/28/02 Formation
documents ofRiata West,
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
LLC
which documents these are.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only tobe told that Hancock would not so comply.
574.
3/27/02 Formation documents of Westwind Properties, LLC
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
which documents these are.
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,
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 82 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
forID
Admitted In Evidence
Description
Objection
P. 26(a)'s express requirement of an
"appropriate identification
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be told that Hancock would
not so comply.
575.
3/8/02 Assignment of Marionneaux option to Riata West, LLC
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
which document this is.
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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be
told that Hancock would not so comply.
576.
6/26/02 Cornwall to Hancock re Olympic Properties
Noobjection, assuming
we understand correctly
which document this is.
It is noted, however, that Meritage assumes that it has reviewed the correct document. In this respect,
Hancock has failed to
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 83 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
forID
Admitted In Evidence
Description
Objection
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)'s express requirement of an
"appropriate identification
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
.
identification only to be
told that Hancock would not so comply.
577.
12/9/02 Formation
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
documents ofEP-THE KING,LLC
which document this is.
H 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
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identific~tion only to be told that Hancock would not so comply.
578.
12/19/02 Formation
documents ofMTHCavalier, LLC by
Monterey (Meritage)
No objection, assuming
we understand correctly
which document this is.
H is noted, however, that
Meritage assumes that it has reviewed the correct document. In this respect,
Hancockhas failed to
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS
Document 544-4
Filed 01/30/2008
Page 84 of 116
Exhibit No.
Marked
forlD
Admitted In Evidence
Description
Objection
comply with Fed. R.Civ. P. 26(a)'s express requirement of an
"appropriate identification
fo each document or exhibit." Plaintiffs
requested such
identification only to be
told that Hancock would
not so comply.
579.
12/30/02 Documents adding MTH-Cavalier, T