K . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U 1 APPEARANCES: I
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF ARIZONA 2 I
3 For Plaintiffs:
MARVIN SAPIRO and GLORIA I 4 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
SAPIRO, his wife, ) BY: GEORGE SCI-IMIDT
- _ _ I 5 Attorney at Law
PIF·III'IYIIIS» I 100 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 2800
I} N CIVD3 1555 PHX SHE 6 Miami, Florida 33131
VS- U- ‘ (305) 539-8400
I ‘ 7
SUNSTONE HOTELS INVESTORS, ) FD, DMB,-Idams;
L.L.C.; SUNSTONE HOTEL ) _ 8
INVESTOFIR LP-· I Kunz, i=>i.nT, 1-iYL4rIo, oentone & i
Defgndama I I Attorney at Law
10 3838 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1902 -
11 (602) 331-4600
DEPOSITION OF MATTHEW R. FREIJE l
San Clemente, California 14
Friday, September 15, 2005 1 5 `
Volume 2 T6
I ‘ l 17
1 13
Reported by: 19
LINDA M. UNGER 20
cse N5. 1140:-I 2i
Job ne. 531777 .
· 24 .
25
· Page 157
‘ 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 INDEX .
2 IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF ARIZONA g W1TN ESS; EXAMINAUON
3 3 MATTHEW R. FREIJE
4 MARVIN SAPIRO and GLORIA ) Volume 2
. SAPIRO, his wife, ) ` 4
‘ 5 p|a,mH+S_ ) ) _ S BY MR. KLEIFIELD 5
6 I
vs. ) No. CIV034555 PHX SRB 7
7 ) 8
SUNSTONE HOTELS INVESTORS, ) 9
8 LLC.; SIJNSTONE HOTEL ) EX;-1113175
INVESTORS, LP., ) -10
9 I
Defendants. ) 11 (NONE) ‘
I? I2
12 13
ts I4
14 Deposition of MATTHEW R. FREIJE, Volume 2, 15
15 taken on behalf of Defendants, at 893 Calle 15
15 Amanacer, San Clemente, California, beginning 17
T 17 at 10:13 a.m. and ending at 2:15 p.m. on Friday, 1B
18 September 16, 2005, before LINDA M. UNGER, 19
19 Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 11403. 20
» S? I 21 I
23 · 23
24 24 I
25 25
Page 155 Page 153
1 (Pages 155 to 158)
Esquire Deposition Services
` 949.440.70 0 .
Case 2:O3—cv-01555-SRB Document 157-1% Filed O2/27/2006 Page 2 of 3
I r· 1 means any level of legionella in the water system. Do 1 contamination. What I want to understand is what is
2 you have an opinion regarding the percentage of public 2 your opinion or conclusion as it relates to this
3 access buildings that likely have some measurable amount 3 property and work that you performed or evidence that
4 of legionella bacteria within their domestic water 4 you've seen that supports that opinion. So Iet's not
5 system? 5 talk about the world of things, but |et's talk about
6 A No, I don't. I couldn't give a percentage. - I 6 your opinion as it relates to this particular property.
7 Q Could you give a range? 7 MFE. SOHMIDT: Objection. Argumentative.
6 A It would only be a guess. No. 8 THE WITNESS: Weil, I can look back through my
9 O Okay. . 9 notes of the inspection and see ifthere's anything in
10 A lt wouIdn't be meaningful anyway without 10 particular.
11 knowing how many samples and what strains you're talking 11 As far as the design of the system, I was never
12 about, but I couldn't anyhow. 12 provided plans that showed the layout throughout the .
13 O Do you hold yourself out as an expert on the 13 campus, only the core buildings. So I“m not sure
14 pathogenic level of legionella? — 14 designwise what could have been a factor in the piping
15 A The dose required to cause disease? 15 that went to each ofthe buildings where the guest rooms
16 Q Yes. 16 were. I
17 A Well, tothe extent that the dose is not known 17 BY MFI. KLEIFIELD:
18 exactly because there are other factors involved} 18 Q Okay.
19 Q Okay. You are not an epidemiologist, are you? 19 A And I can point to a number of factors that
20 A No. 20 could have been involved, but it's very rare in any
21 Q You're not an immunolcgist, are you? ` 21 legionella investigation, including this one, where you
22 A No. 22 can point to one factor.
23 Q You're not a microbiologist, are you? 23 You can determine that it was the domestic
24 A No. 24 water system rather than another system or one building
25 Q You're not a virologist, are you? 25 rather than another building, but to say what caused the
. Page 171 Page 173 _ _
r 1 A No. 1 legionella to flourish in that building to begin with is
= 2 Q Do you hold yourself out as an expert regarding 2 not something that can be determined with any accuracy.
3 which sera group of legionella are more pathogenic than 3 O So if I understand correctly, you're telling me
4 others? 4 that you cannot determine with any accuracy what caused
- 5 A As much as anyone else as far as knowing which 5 the promulgation or contamination of the legionella in
6 ones research indicates are. I'm not the one who does 6 this domestic water system of this property to
7 the microbiology to come up th data though. 7 pathogenic levels?
8 O So that's based solely upon your reading of 8 MH. SCHMIDT: Objection. Form;
9 others' documentation in that respect? 9 · mischaracterizes former testimony.
10 A Yes. 10 THE WITNESS: lt would be related to stagnation
1 1 O Going back to your belief that the legionella 11 in the water, maintenance of the ·domestic water system. I
12 at the San Marcos that you believe that caused -- strike 12 But to say that it was one particular issue like it was
13 that -— that you believe that Mr. Sapiro was exposed to 13 a given tank or a given faucet is not something that can
14 during his stay was found in the domestic water system, 14 be determined.
15 you- mentioned that you believe that some ofthe factors 15 BY MH. KLEIFIELD: _
16 which caused or contributed to cause the contamination 16 O So you believe that the promulgation was a
17 was the age of the tanks and the cross-connections. 17 _ result of deficient maintenance; correct?
18 Any other factors that you believe caused or · 18 A I believe that contributed to it.
19 contributed to cause the contamination of the San 19 O What else contributed to the promulgation?
20 Marcos? ·· . 20 A It could have something to do with the
21 A I believe there could have been a number of ‘ ` 21 components themselves like the age of the tanks that
22 them, and that's —— 22 possibly could not have been mitigated merely by
23 Cl Let's kind of focus it a bit because again, I'm 23 maintenance.
24 not talking about generalities or, you know, what the 24 O Do you —— I'm sorry. Go ahead.
25 literature says regarding potential cause of 25 A The design could have had some factor, although
Page 172 ` _ Page 174
5 (Pages .171 to 174)
Esquire Deposition Services
949.440.7000
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 157-13 Filed O2/27/2006 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB
Document 157-13
Filed 02/27/2006
Page 1 of 3
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB
Document 157-13
Filed 02/27/2006
Page 2 of 3
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB
Document 157-13
Filed 02/27/2006
Page 3 of 3
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms