Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

{ EXHIBIT B
I
%
I
I
E
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 173-4 Filed O4/24/2006 Page1 of 3

1 STEVEN W. DAVIS (Pro Hao Vice, Aug. 26, 2003)
DAVID W. SI-IAPIRO, AZ BAR NO. 015295
2 ANN M. GALVANI (Pro Hac Vice, Sept 29, 2003) -
J ORGE SCHMIDT (Pro Hao Vice, March 17, 2005)
3 BOIES, SCI-IILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
. 100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 2800
4 Miami, Florida 3 3 131
Telephone (305) 53 9—S400
1 5 Facsimile $305) 539-1307 ·
· Attorneys or Plaintiffs Marvin and Glori Sapiro
- 6 i
· IN THE UNITE , STATES DIS CT COURT
7 » FOR THE A ISTRICT OF ZONA
I 8 PH ENIX DIV ISIO
2 9 MARVIN SAPIRO and g ASE NO. CIV O3 1555 PI-IX SRB
- 10 GLORIA SAPIRO, his wife, )
I I Plaintilfs, 3
12 vs. I DE LARATION OF MATTHEW R.
I3 ’ ’““3l» omSUP1I1(*i1dTn(d%;)1{JJ1l5`HWTAmIé?FS’
suusroun norm. mvssroas, 1..1.. ., SITI0 ’NT
14 SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, L.P. § MOH N FOR SUMMARY JUDGME
1 1 5 Defendants. 2
‘ 16 )
17
? 18
I, Matthew R. Freije, hereby decl e:
I 9
1. I am over eighteen years of age an have personal owledge of the facts set forth herein.
20
21 2. I make this declaration in support f Plaintiffs Mar in and Gloria Sapiro’s Opposition to
22
, Sunstone’s motion for summaryj dginent.
I 23
24 3. Concerning the detennination of e level of bacter al contamination at the San Marcos
5
or 2 during the time of Mr. Sapiro’s st in February, 2 03, it would be contrary to standard
26
27 industry practices, andscientitical y unsound, to a empt a regression analysis working
I 28 backwards from the test results ob ' ed later in th year.
1
Declara 'on of Matthew rije
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 173-4 Filed O4/24/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 4. The primary reason such auanalysis is not done is l at the results would be unreliable. A
2 domestic Water system, such as the one at the San arcos, is an open and dynamic
3
i system, with numerous variables and factors (e. g. ater being flushed from the system;
1 _ 4
l 5 new water being introduced into the system) affect ng the nturtbers of Legionella bacteria
_ 6 in the system at a given time.
7
8 5. Similarly, Defe11dants’ suggestion that the high le ls of bacterial contamination found in
9 tests conducted several months after Mr. Sapiro’s ay could be the result of a “spike" is
— 10 highly improbable. Although Legionella bacterial vels will vary from time to time,
ll studies indicate that a Legionella problem is not ` ely to come and go without
4 12 ·
intervention. A system that is contaminated with e bacteria is very unlikely to correct
13
14 itself-—even after an initial disinfection procedure, continuous disinfection will likely be
. 15 needed to provide safe water. Conversely, Legion lla contamination discovered in a
. I6 domestic water system did not likely develop in re ent days, weeks, or months, unless an
17 unusual event occurred to cause it.
’ l 8
I 19
20 I declare under penalty of petjtuy under the laws o the United States of America that the
I 21 foregoing is true and correct.
22
23 Executedon ·gl:»-Z"r’.?,c>0Q in lbcilc Calf -.
24
25 . L
r 26
27 Matthew R. Freij e
28 -
2 n
Y Declaration of Matthew reije
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 173-4 Filed O4/24/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB

Document 173-4

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB

Document 173-4

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB

Document 173-4

Filed 04/24/2006

Page 3 of 3