A- . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 APPEARANCES:
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF ARIZONA 2 I
_ 3 For Plaintiffs:
MARVIN SAFIRO and GLORIA I 4 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
SAPIFI0. his wife.) I _ ev; GEORGE scHMIor
_ 5 Attorney at Law
P|¤lTI¤1l°2» ) I 100 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 2800
6 M' ‘, Fl 'cl 33131
VS. I NO. C|V03-1555 PHX SFIB (3§g|5]|53QCEg43O
I ‘ 7
SUNSTONE HOTELS INVESTORS, I pur Dgfgndantsi
L.L.C.; SUNSTONE HOTEL I 8
iNVE5TO2$· '—-F’·· I Kunz, purr, HYLAND, DEMLGNG 8. I
Dgfgndami 1 , Attorney at Law
` 10 3838 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1902
11 (602) 331 -4800
DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW R. FREIJE ‘
San Clemente, California 14
· Friday, September 18, 2005 15
Volume 2
18
‘ 17
18
Reported by: 12 I
LINDA M. uNGse 22 ‘
CSR No. 11403 - 21
Joe No. esi 777 . 22
23 _
24
25 .
Page 157
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 INDEX .
g IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF ARIZONA g WITNESS; EXAMINATION
3 MATTHEW R. FREIJE
4 MARVIN SAPIRO and GLORIA I Volumg 2
SAPIRO, his wife, ) · ` 4
Plaintiffs, I g BY MFI. KLEIFIELD . 5
vs. I No. CIV03-1555 PHX SRB 7
7 I 8
SUNSTONE HOTELS INVESTORS, I ` S
8 L.L..C.; SUNSTONE HOTEL I EXI-IISITS
INVESTORS, LP., I 10
9 )
_ Defendants. I 1, (NONE)
10 . . I
’ 11 . 12
~ 12 12 -
I3 14
14 Deposition of MATTHEW Fi. FFIEIJE, Volume 2, 15
15 taken on behalf of Defendants, at 893 Calle 18
15 Amanacer, San Clemente, California, beginning 17
17 at 10:13 a.m. and ending at 2:15 p.m. on Friday, 18
18 September 18, 2005, before LINDA M. UNGER, 19
19 Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 11403. · 20
I » E? 21
. - 22 22
23 23
24 24 I
25 25 I
Page 158 Page 158
1 (Pages 155 to 158) -
Esquire Deposition Services
''‘' 949.44 OOO .
I Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document tg`;-14 Filed O2/27/2008 Page 2 of 3
?~ 1 performed in connection with this matter, did you reach 1 the hot water tanks and the fact that, at least
2 a conclusion or opinion regarding the source, the _ 2 according to the documents i received, they were not
3 location of the legionella which you believe that caused 3 cleaned periodically and there was likely significant
4 Mr. Sapiro's exposure while he stayed at the San Marcos? 4 buildup in the bottoms of those tanks. And based on my
5 A I believe it was the domestic water system. 5 inspection ofthe tanks that had been removed, it
6 Itls possible that he could have been exposed from e 6 appeared that that was the case.
7 contaminated aerosols from the cooling tower, but I did 7 The back cross-connections could have been an
8 not have cooling tower samples, and because the levels 8 issue because there were a number-- four, I believe --
9 were so high in the domestic water system, I think it 9 backflow preventers that were found to be faulty. I
. 10 was more likely that he was exposed by the domestic 10 wasn't able to document exactly where each of those were
11 water system. 11 because it wasn't in the documents, but that can be a -
12 O You have no information or evidence that there 12 problem with domestic water systems.
13 was any level of legionella contamination in the cooling 13 Q With regard to this system in particular,
14 towers on this property at any point in time, do you? 14 you're telling me that you did not perform a study or `
15 A I was never allowed to sample, or I never did 15 assessment that demonstrated whether or not
16 sample it. s 16 cross-connections caused or contributed to cause what
17 Q So my statement is correct that you have no 17 you characterize as a legionella contamination; true? I
18 such evidence that there's ever been a demonstrated 1B A It wouldnt have been something that I would
19 legionella contamination in the cooling tower? 19 study. When I examine buildings, I find out whether
20 A Or lack of, either one. 20 they have been checked for cross—contaminations annually
21 CJ With regard to the domestic water system, did 21 to see if backflow preventers are located where they are
_ 22 you reach a conclusion regarding the cause of the 22 supposed to and if they have been tested to ensure that
23 legionella contamination in the domestic water system at 23 they are working. I don't do the testing myself of
24 this property? 24 backflow prevention devices. -
. 25 A Well, when you say the cause, do you mean was 25 Q You have not seen -- strike that.
Page 163 Page 165
1 there one factor in particular that I could point to and 1 So based upon your work in this matter, you've
· 2 say this is why the domestic water system had 2 not been able to demonstrate that any cross-connections
3 legionella? - 3 on this property caused or contributed to cause what you
4 O One or more. 4 characterize as the legionella contamination; true?
5 ‘ A Domestic water systems of this type —- and when 5 A I can go only by the documents that I reviewed
6 I say of this type, I mean large recirculating plumbing 6 in which the local authorities —- l think it was the
7 systems -· are generally conducive to legionella growth 7 city —— reported that there were four backflow
B because ofthe biofilm in the system and the water B preventers that needed to be installed in the property
9 heating in the system in particular. . 9 either because there we-ren't any where they were
10 And there can be factors that make one system 10 supposed to be or the ones that were there were not
11 more conducive than another, either how it's designed or 11 working, and so that could have contributed.
12 how it's operated, but-- and that's why it's important 12 I didn't take tests to find out if, in fact,
13 to test them to rule out that they're —- to find out 13 that would have allowed contamination of the property.
_14 whether or not they're contaminated. 14 That‘s not something that's done on legionella
15 Q li/ly question was with regard to this specific 15 investigations.
16 system then, not in general or what systems of this type 16 Q Did you generate any opinion or conclusion
17 present by way of any particular risk. I'm asking 17 regarding how legionella was initially introduced into
18 whether you reached any conclusion regarding the cause 16 this domestic water system?
P 19 ofthe contamination in this particular water system. 19 A No. That wasn't part of my assignment.
20 What was it about this particular system? Vlrhere is it 20 Q Do you agree with me that it was likely
21 within the system that you believe the contamination 21 introduced through the municipal water system?
22 existed or came from? 22 A In very low or undetectable levels, yes.
23 A I can't point to any particular factor. There 23 Q You agree with me that the majority of
24 are factors related ~·~ I mean there could be a number of 24 buildings within a particular municipality likely have
25 factors that would have contributed to it. The age of 25 some level of legionella bacteria within the domestic
Page 164 s Page 166
3 (Pages 163 to 166)
Esquire Deposition Services
949.440.7000
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 157-14 Filed O2/27/2006 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB
Document 157-14
Filed 02/27/2006
Page 1 of 3
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB
Document 157-14
Filed 02/27/2006
Page 2 of 3
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB
Document 157-14
Filed 02/27/2006
Page 3 of 3
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms