Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

G. Gregory Eagleburger, #002695 The Eagleburger Law Group 2999 N. 44th Street, Suite 303 Phoenix, Arizona 85018 (602)840-6533 Fax (602)808-9402 Attorney for Individual Defendants

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Awareness Corporation, Plaintiff, v. GROUP VISION INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., a Michigan limited liability company; KELLY MATTICE and PAIGE MATTICE, husband and wife; KEVIN and CHERYL MACGREGOR, husband and wife dba THE LIFE TREE; LYNN and RENIE REMELSKI; and DAVID and SUZANNE BETTS, Defendants.
And related cross claims and third party actions.

Case No. CV03-2024-DGC INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO AWARENESS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3

Individual Defendants hereby respond to Awareness' Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Certain Witnesses With No Relevant Knowledge at Trial and respectfully contend that such witnesses do have relevant knowledge as to the issues to be tried as noted below.

25 26 27 28 Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC Document 382 Filed 08/15/2005 Page 1 of 5

This Response is further supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the entire Court record in this case.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Whether or not these witnesses have relevant testimony is impossible to know for certain prior to trial. The witnesses listed are believed to have relevant information by the Individual Defendants. A Motion In Limine is not intended to test the relevancy of any evidence. It is to exclude issues and evidence-on issues which are not to be tried as delineated by the Court in its June 1, 2005 Order (Docket 341, p.31) Awareness is not the decider of what witnesses will say or who should be called to testify.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

The fact that a witness was a former employee of Awareness does not mean he has no relevant information, the probability is that he or she does. Each of the former employees did work for Awareness at relevant times. The fact that a witness used to work for Radcliff Technologies, a company utilized by Awareness in its business (and owned by relatives of the owner of Awareness), does not mean they have no knowledge of the interworking of Awareness; the probability is that he or she does. The fact that a witness is a family member of the owner of Awareness does not mean they have no knowledge of the activities of Awareness; the probability is that he or

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

she does. The fact that a witness is a former Awareness distributor does not mean they have no information about how Awareness treated their customers, downlines, commissions, product returns and complaints; the probability is that he or she does. Awareness has not shown that any witness listed by the Individual Defendants does not have knowledge of the events surrounding the issues to be tried. Awareness'
Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC Document 382 -2Filed 08/15/2005 Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

bar assertion of such is not evidence. On the other hand, Awareness has listed over 152 witnesses that it may call at trial; 141 of which (witnesses 6-79, 81-130, 133-152) allegedly are to testify about the Awareness claims which the Court in its June 1, 2005, Order, limited to 18 (Docket 341, p.17, lines 12-15). The Individual Defendants state as follows with regard to the knowledge of the witnesses made the subject of this Motion. 1. Harry Tahiliani is the creator of the Awareness Computer Software claimed

as copyright and has direct knowledge of what its nature and extent is, including how it
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

calculates commissions and bonuses. 2. Promila Tahiliani. Ms. Tahiliani has knowledge of Awareness product

development and therefore knows when the labeling was in error. She also is employed by Lata Pall doing the finances for Awareness and knows what the true financial picture of Awareness was at all relevant times. 3. Angela Tahiliani. Ms. Tahiliani was involved in the research for the

information contained in Awareness' Keys to Vibrant Health and participated in training of the distributors as to Senna and has expressed opinions on such under the name of "Dr. Angela Chase, Naturopath."

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4. Awareness.

Nandlal Tahiliani. Mr. Tahiliani is involved in the day-to-day workings of He may also have been involved with the Third Party Defendants in

contacting GVI distributors. 5. Brenda Perez worked with Lata Pall on calculations of Awareness

commissions and bonuses and shipping and discounts of, and has direct knowledge of the calculations used and policies administered.
Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC Document 382 -3Filed 08/15/2005 Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

6.

Delain Johnson was a distributor service advisor with Awareness during the

period 1999-2003 and has direct knowledge of the difficulties involved in shipping of product and handling of customer and distributor complaints and worked with Lata Pall to figure bonuses and commissions. 7. Kiki Matsumoto has direct knowledge of the delay in shipping of

Awareness, the delay's effects on sales and the response of Awareness to such complaints. 8. Gloria Kellogg. Ms. Kellogg has knowledge that Mark Tahiliani reviewed

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

all Awareness marketing from 1999-2003. 9. Dr. Miles McCartney. Dr. McCartney was/is a distributor of Awareness

who has knowledge of the reasons that distributors quit Awareness prior to the resignation of the Individual Defendants. 10. Beth Hill. Ms. Hill was the personal assistant to Mark Tahiliani in the past

and has knowledge about Mr. Tahiliani and Harry Tahiliani's instructions to Lata Pall about commissions and to the wherehouse regarding shipping and to the distributor service agents about complaints. 11. Francesca Chaporra was a distributor services advisor for Awareness

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

during 2001-2003 and has direct information as to payment of commissions and bonuses, returns of product, and handling of distributor and customer complaints. 12. Bob Mace. Mr. Mace was the person contacted by the FDA regarding

product complaints about the Senna in products and therefore has direct knowledge about Senna being in the products before July 2003. For the above reasons Awareness' Motion in Limine No. 3 should be denied.
Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC Document 382 -4Filed 08/15/2005 Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of August, 2005. THE EAGLEBURGER LAW GROUP By: /s/ G. Gregory Eagleburger Attorney for Individual Defendants

The ORIGINAL of the foregoing electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court this 15th day of August, 2005 and a COPY hand-delivered to: The Honorable David G. Campbell U. S. District Court of Arizona 401 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2118 And a mailed to: Steven M. Weinberg, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 2375 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Attorneys for Plaintiff Curtis D. Drew, Esq. 2342 N. Pima Scottsdale, AZ 85257-2405 Attorney for Group Vision International, LLC /s/ Jill Robinson

Case 2:03-cv-02024-DGC

Document 382

-5Filed 08/15/2005

Page 5 of 5