Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

John T. Masterson, Bar #007447 Jennifer L. Holsman, Bar #022787 J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone No.: (602) 263-1700 Facsimile No.: (602) 263-1784 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Brad Weekley, Penny Dalhberg, Guy Gorman, Dave Boatwright UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JAMES W. FIELD and SUSAN F. FIELD, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. LA PAZ COUNTY, et al., Defendants. Defendants Weekley, Dahlberg, Gorman and Boatwright, submit this No. CIV 03-02214 PHX-SRB LA PAZ DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE TRIAL DEPOSITION OF PETE HEERE

12 13 14 15 16

Reply in Support of their M otion for Leave to Take the Trial Deposition of Deputy 17 Pete Heere. For the reasons outlined below, Defendants' Motion must be granted. 18 This Motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 19 the pleadings on file with the Court and any oral argument the Court may hold in 20 this matter. 21 MEMO RANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 22 I. 23 Plaintiff, in his Response, asserts that "if taking a deposition at this 24 time next (sic) the defendants will again be seeking a postponement of Trial (sic) 25 26 ARGUMENT

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 181

Filed 05/23/2006

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

therefore plaintiff objects to this request." 1 Based on this statement, it appears that Plaintiff has no objection to the La Paz Defendants taking the deposition of Pete Heere if it does not interfere with the scheduled trial. As the La Paz Defendants outlined in their Motion, the deposition of Pete Heere would take place on May 31, 2006, nearly two weeks before the scheduled trial. Thus, there is no anticipated "interference" with the trial. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to outline any "good cause" for not allowing this deposition to move forward on May 31, 2006. Instead, Plaintiff again makes baseless accusations that have nothing to do with Defendants' request to take the trial deposition of a key witness in this case. Finally, although Plaintiff appears to have "waived" his right to call Deputy Pete Heere at trial, Defendants do not intend to do so. Deputy Heere is an important witness to the defense and his testimony must be heard by the jury. As outlined previously, it is anticipated that Deputy Heere will provide background information regarding contact with Plaintiff related to his failure to comply with La Paz County regulations with the property, the service of the October 28, 2002 search warrant to determine electrical code compliance, the search of Plaintiff's property on October 30, 2002 to determine electrical code compliance, and the January 2006 inspection of Plaintiff's property to again determine electrical code compliance. This is critical information for the jury to hear in order to fairly adjudicate this matter.

See page 1 of Plaintiff's Response to Notice of Deposition of Pete Heere and Waver (sic) of the Right to Call this Witness at Trial. 2

1.

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 181

Filed 05/23/2006

Page 2 of 3

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

II.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this

Court grant their Motion for Leave to Take Trial Deposition of Pete Heere on May 31, 2006 beginning at 11:00 am. DATED this 23rd day of May, 2006. J ONES, S KELTON & H OCHULI, P.L.C. By s/Jennifer L. Holsman John T. Masterson Jennifer L. Holsman 2901 North Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Brad Weekley, Penny Dalhberg, Guy Gorman, Dave Boatwright Foregoing filed ELECTRONICALLY this 23rd day of May, 2006. COPY of the foregoing mailed even date to: James W. Field Post Office Box 248 Salome, Arizona 85348 Plaintiff Pro Per s/ Colleen Webb.

1632241_1

3 Document 181 Filed 05/23/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB