Free Memorandum - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

1 Laura Zeman (#014713) Jennifer Hadley Dioguardi (#018380) 2 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 3 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 4 Telephone: (602) 382-6371 Facsimile: (602) 382-6070 5 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] 6 Anthony R. Zeuli (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 7 MERCHANT & GOULD LLP 3200 IDS Center th 8 80 South 8 Street 55402-2215 Minneapolis, MN 9 Telephone: (612) 332-5300 Attorneys for Defendant Nash-Finch Company 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In accordance with Rule 54.2(c)-(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Defendant Nash-Finch Company ("Nash Finch") hereby submits the following Memorandum and attached documentation in support of its February 21, 2006 Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees which Nash Finch was forced to incur in its successful defense of this long-standing patent infringement case brought by plaintiff Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation, Limited Partnership ("Lemelson"). Because the legal issues are identical for each of the defendants seeking reimbursement of fees and costs, Nash Finch joins the well-written Memorandum of Liz Claiborne, where appropriate, in order to avoid
Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH Document 756 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 1 of 16

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation, Limited Partnership, Plaintiff, v. Comp USA Inc., et al., Defendants.

No. CV-00-00663 PHX-HRH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT NASH-FINCH COMPANY'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND JOINDER-IN-PART IN DEFENDANT LIZ CLAIBORNE'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

duplication. As discussed below, this case, perhaps more than any before it, qualifies as "exceptional" within the meaning of the statute providing for attorneys' fees in patent disputes, 28 U.S.C. § 285, and Nash Finch respectfully requests that it be awarded the reasonable total sum of $14,799.50 as a prevailing party. I. ELIGIBILITY Nash Finch joins, and will not repeat here, section A-D of Liz Claiborne's memorandum. Nash Finch would like to emphasize, however, that "culpable neglect" was the term the District Court of Nevada used to describe the conduct of Lemelson in pursuing an improper patent-filing strategy of purposely delaying the issuance of allowed claims that left businesses unable to determine what was patented from what was not patented and then using those long-delayed patents to threaten almost 1,000 businesses (including suing 134 defendants) with injunctions and potentially business-ending damages.1 Culpable neglect is wanton, reckless conduct -- the type of conduct that may give rise to punitive damages.2 Section 285 of the Patent Act, which is compensatory and not punitive,3 does not require any higher level of culpability than reckless or wanton conduct.4 A case may be exceptional if a party acts with actual wrongful intent or with gross negligence.5 "The gross negligence standard has been defined as requiring willful, wanton, or reckless misconduct, or evidence of utter lack of all care."6 Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found., Ltd. P'ship, 301 F.Supp 2d 1147, 1154-57 (D. Nev. 2004); aff'd 422 F.3d 1378, 1385-86 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 2 "In this case the defendant was guilty of wanton misconduct and culpable neglect. . . . It is an immaterial fact that the injury was unintentional, and that the ball glanced from the intended direction. . . . [If] the act is done where there are objects from which the balls may glance and endanger others, the act is wanton, reckless, without due care, and grossly negligent." Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 45 n.12 (1982) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). 3 Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer NutzFahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., et al., 383 F.3d 1387, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 4 Eltech Sys. Corp. v. PPG Indus., Inc., 903 F.2d 805, 811 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (affirming holding of "exceptional" and award of fees where plaintiff's conduct in litigation was reckless). 5 Machinery Corp. of America v. Gullfiber AB, 774 F.2d 467, 473 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 6 Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH Document 756 - 2 -Filed 04/17/2006 Page 2 of 16
1

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Lemelson may argue that its patent-filing strategy was permissible under thencurrent Patent Office procedure. That argument was expressly rejected by the Nevada District Court.
7

Lemelson may also argue that its conduct before the Patent Office

should not be attributed to the defendants, but if that were the case than inequitable conduct before the Patent Office could not be a basis for a finding of "exceptional." It is black letter law that inequitable conduct by the patentee before the Patent Office can be a sufficient basis for a finding of "exceptional."8 II. ENTITLEMENT Nash Finch joins Claiborne's section here. III. REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED AWARD As set forth in the Task-Based Itemized Statements of Attorneys' Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses (Exhibits B and D hereto), Nash Finch seeks a total award of $14,799.50 for the amounts it has been charged by the two law firms which successfully represented it throughout the six-year duration of this litigation. For the reasons

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

discussed below and in the attached Declarations by Nash Finch's moving counsel (Exhibits A and C hereto), the award requested by Nash Finch is entirely reasonable. The requisite Statement of Consultation of counsel is attached as Exhibit E. A. The Time and Labor Required by Counsel. The amount of time for which Nash Finch seeks an award of attorneys' fees totals 54.13 hours. 25.13 hours were expended by Nash Finch's lead patent counsel in

Minneapolis, Merchant & Gould, P.C., and 29 hours were expended by Nash Finch's local Arizona counsel, Snell & Wilmer. To avoid duplication of effort, Merchant & Gould and Snell & Wilmer carefully coordinated and divided the tasks each would perform on Nash Finch's behalf in defending the patent infringement claims alleged by Lemelson. The time and labor expended by Nash Finch's attorneys were therefore both reasonable and necessary to Nash Finch's successful defense of this case.
7 8

Symbol, 301 F.Supp.2d at 1156-57. Brasseler, U.S.A. I, L.P. v. Stryker Sales Corp., 267 F.3d 1370, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Document 756 - 3 -Filed 04/17/2006

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Page 3 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

B.

The Novelty and Difficulty of the Questions Presented. Nash Finch join's Claiborne's Memorandum on this point and also joins in

sections C and D of the Claiborne Memorandum. C. The Customary Fee Charged in Matters of the Type Involved. As explained in the attached Declaration of Anthony R. Zeuli and Declaration of Jennifer Dioguardi, the fees charged by their respective firms were consistent with or below those customarily charged for matters of this type in the Phoenix and Minneapolis legal communities. D. Whether the Fee Contracted Between the Attorney and the Client is Fixed or Contingent. As discussed in Mr. Zeuli's Declaration, Nash Finch agreed to compensate Merchant & Gould on a fixed hourly rate basis for its work on this case. As explained in Ms. Dioguardi's Declaration, Nash Finch also agreed to compensate Snell & Wilmer on a fixed hourly rate basis, subject to adjustment under the factors specified in E.R. 1.5 of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. E. Any Time Limitations Imposed by the Client or the Circumstances. Nash Finch joins Claiborne's Memorandum on this point. F. The Amount of Money, or the Value of the Rights, Involved, and the Results Obtained. Nash Finch joins Claiborne's Memorandum on this point. G. The Experience, Reputation and Ability of Counsel. Snell & Wilmer is a respected law firm in the state of Arizona and has a welldeserved reputation for quality work, client service, and reasonable fees. The Merchant & Gould firm has a similarly excellent reputation in the state of Minnesota and nationally, where it is particularly well known for its work on patent matters. Both firms have a great deal of experience in civil litigation in both state and federal courts. The specific abilities and experience of each individual lawyer who worked on this case are

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 756 - 4 -Filed 04/17/2006

Page 4 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

more fully discussed in the attached Declaration of Mr. Zeuli and Declaration of Ms. Dioguardi. H. The "Undesirability" of the Case. Nash Finch joins the Memorandum of Claiborne on this point. I. The Nature and Length of the Professional Relationship Between the Attorney and the Client. Merchant & Gould has represented Nash Finch in intellectual property matters since 1981. That firm handles many areas of Nash Finch's patent and other intellectual property issues. Snell & Wilmer was hired as local counsel for Nash Finch in this matter on the recommendation of Merchant & Gould. Snell & Wilmer had no prior relationship with Nash Finch. J. Awards in Similar Actions. Nash Finch believes that the amount it seeks herein is commensurate with fees awarded in similar types of circumstances. K. Other Matters Deemed Appropriate under the Circumstances. In addition to the successful stay strategy adopted by Nash Finch, a substantial amount of attorney time was saved through Merchant & Gould's and Snell & Wilmer's defense of two other defendants (Ingram Industries and Ingram Entertainment); the former in this lawsuit and the latter in one of the other four parallel lawsuits filed by Lemelson in the District of Arizona, Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., Ltd. P'ship v. Federal Express, No. CIV '01-02287 PHX HRH. Because both cases

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

proceeded on nearly simultaneous tracks with the same outcomes, the attorneys' fees charged by Merchant & Gould and Snell & Wilmer could be and were nearly equally divided and shared between Nash Finch, Ingram Industries and Ingram Entertainment, greatly reducing the fees billed to each client. IV. CONCLUSION Perhaps no other case has been as deserving of the label "exceptional" as these Lemelson lawsuits filed against over 100 defendants, who refused to rollover and pay
Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH Document 756 - 5 -Filed 04/17/2006 Page 5 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

ransom rather than fight. These defendants, including Nash Finch, incurred many costs that cannot be reimbursed under the statute. For example, company time and expenses analyzing the asserted patents and their many claims, prior art searches, and risks to the business by the threatened injunction. In addition, this court cannot reimburse these defendants for any increases in insurance due to Lemelson's allegation of infringement which had to be reported, lost opportunity costs while the companies toiled for six years under the cloud of an infringement allegation, and lost corporate giving which may have been reduced due to legal costs and uncertainties. All-in-all, the Lemelson lawsuits cost the defendants a great deal more than they can ask this court to award them. The amounts sought under the statute may be small in terms of dollars, but they are large in terms of what they represent for these prevailing defendants. DATED this 17th day of April, 2006. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. By: s/ Jennifer Hadley Dioguardi Laura Zeman (#014713) Jennifer Hadley Dioguardi (#018380) One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] -andAnthony R. Zeuli (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) MERCHANT & GOULD LLP 3200 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2215 Attorneys for Defendant Nash-Finch Company

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 756 - 6 -Filed 04/17/2006

Page 6 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 17th day of April, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrants: James W. Armstrong, Esq. Sacks Tierney, PA 4250 North Civic Center Blvd. 4th Floor Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Michael A. Beale John A. Michaels Beale & Michaels, P.C. 1440 E. Missouri Ave., Suite 150 Phoenix, AZ 85014 David P. Berten Competition Law Group LLC 120 S. State Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60603 Peter J. Brann, Esq. Brann & Isaacson LLP P.O. Box 3070 Lewiston, ME 04243 Robert R. Brunelli E-mail: [email protected] Paul E. Burns, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson, LLP Collier Center 201 E. Washington St., Ste. 1600 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Timothy J. Casey Jennifer Hadley Dioguardi Bradley W. Petersen Douglas W. Seitz Laura Zeman Snell & Wilmer LLP One Arizona Center 400 East Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Edward T. Colbert Kenyon & Kenyon 1500 K St NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 756

Filed 04/17/2006

Page 7 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Victoria Gruver Curtin Victoria Gruver Curtin PLC 14614 North Kierland Blvd., Suite 300 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 John E. DeWulf Roshka Dewulf & Patten PLC One Arizona Center, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85004-3906 Brett L. Dunkelman Osborn Maledon PA 2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794 Richard A. Halloran Lewis & Roca LLP 40 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429 Ray Kendall Harris Fennemore Craig PC 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 2600 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Louis J. Hoffman Hoffman & Zur 14614 North Kierland Blvd., Suite 300 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Isabel M. Humphrey Hunter Humphrey & Yavitz PLC 410 North 44th Street, Suite 320 Phoenix, AZ 85008 Susan E. Irwin Manning & Marder Kass Ellrod Ramirez LLP 14362 N. Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard Suite 2300 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Robert J. Itri Gallagher & Kennedy PA 2575 E. Camelback Road, Suite 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Jonathan M. James Perkins Coie Brown & Bain PA P.O. Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001-0400 Cheryl Lee Johnson Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP 801 S. Figueroa Street, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017
Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH Document 756 - 2 -Filed 04/17/2006 Page 8 of 16

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Steven G. Lisa Law Offices of Steven G. Lisa, Ltd. 401 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60611 Jennifer P. Nore Meyer, Hendricks & Bivens 3003 N. Central Ave., Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2915 Robert J. Pohlman Ryley Carlock & Applewhite PC One North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Michael Rudolph Ross Meyer Hendricks & Bivens PA P.O. Box 2199 Phoenix, AZ 85001 Michael S. Rubin Marical, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander PA 2901 N. Central Ave. Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Barry R. Sanders Mariscal Weeks McIntyre & Friedlander PA 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Benjamin C. Thomas Thomas Thomas & Appel PC 2700 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Donald J. Wall Mark A. Nadeau Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4441 Peter C. Warner Peter C. Warner PC 1723 W. 4th Street Tempe, AZ 85281-2404 Darlene Marie Wauro Roshka Dewulf & Patten PLC One Arizona Center, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85004-3906

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 756 - 3 -Filed 04/17/2006

Page 9 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

I hereby certify that on the 17th day of April, 2006, I served the attached document by U.S. Mail on the following, who are not registered participants of the ECF System: Andrew Abraham Burch & Cracchiolo PA PO Box 16882 Phoenix, AZ 85011-6882 Hugh A Abrams Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP Bank 1 Plaza 10 S Dearborn St Chicago, IL 60603 Robert E B Allen Mariscal Weeks McIntyre & Friedlander PA 2901 N Central Ave Ste 200 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2705 Larry C Boyd Ingram Micro Inc 1600 E St Andrew Pl Santa Ana, CA 92705 Kenneth R Chiate Pillsbury Winthrop LLP 725 S Figueroa St Ste 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406 J Bennett Clark Senniger Powers Leavitt & Roedel 1 Metropolitan Sq 16th Floor St Louis, MO 63102 Kevin B Collins Venable Baetjer Howard & Civiletti LLP 1201 New York Ave NW Ste 1000 Washington, DC 20005-3917 Jennifer E Cook Senniger Powers Leavitt & Roedel 1 Metropolitan Sq 16th Floor St Louis, MO 63102

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 756 - 4 Filed 04/17/2006

Page 10 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

William D Coston Venable Baetjer Howard & Civiletti LLP 1201 New York Ave NW Ste 1000 Washington, DC 20005-3917 John H Cotton John H Cotton & Associates Ltd 2300 W Sahara Ste 420 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Rita Coyle DeMeules Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP 2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Ave Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 David W Denenberg Gibbons Del Deo Dolan Griffinger & Vecchione 1 Pennsylvania Plaza 37th Fl New York, NY 10119 Martin I Eisenstein Brann & Isaacson LLP PO Box 3070 Lewiston, ME 04243-3070 Albert E Fey Fish & Neave 1251 Ave of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Mark A Flagel Latham & Watkins 633 W 5th St Ste 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 Lee A Freeman Freeman Freeman & Salzman PC 401 N Michigan Ave Ste 3200 Chicago, IL 60611 John N Gallo Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP Bank 1 Plaza 10 S Dearborn St Chicago, IL 60603

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 756 - 5 Filed 04/17/2006

Page 11 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Scott H Gingold Latham & Watkins 5800 Sears Tower 233 S Wacker Dr Chicago, IL 60606 Jennifer P Goetsch Marshall O'Toole Gerstein Murray & Borun 233 S Wacker Dr Ste 6300 Chicago, IL 60606 Thomas O Gorman Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Ave NW Ste 500 Washington, DC 20006 George Gottlieb Gottlieb Rackman & Reisman PC 270 Madison Ave 8th Floor New York, NY 10016 Lee F Grossman Marshall O'Toole Gerstein Murray & Borun 233 S Wacker Dr Ste 6300 Chicago, IL 60606 Herbert J Hammond Thompson & Knight LLP 1700 Pacific Ave Ste 3300 Dallas, TX 75201 John E Hedstrom Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Ave NW Ste 500 Washington, DC 20006 Jesse J Jenner Fish & Neave 1251 Ave of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Darin M Klemchuk Cash Klemchuk Powers Taylor LLP Campbell Centre II 8150 N Central Expressway Ste 1575 Dallas, TX 75206

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 756 - 6 Filed 04/17/2006

Page 12 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Emily S Lau Fenwick & West LLP 2 Palo Alto Sq Ste 700 Palo Alto, CA 94306 James T Malysiak Freeman Freeman & Salzman PC 401 N Michigan Ave Ste 3200 Chicago, IL 60611 Lisa Meyerhoff Jenkens & Gilchrist PC 1445 Ross Ave Ste 3200 Dallas, TX 75202 David A Nelson Latham & Watkins 5800 Sears Tower 233 S Wacker Dr Chicago, IL 60606 Bart James Patterson University & Community College 5550 W Flamingo Rd Ste C-1 Las Vegas, NV 89103-0137 Lisa A Pieroni Kirschstein Ottinger Israel & Schiffmiller PC 489 5th Ave 17th Floor New York, NY 10017 David Anthony Plumley Christie Parker & Hale LLP 350 W Colorado Blvd Ste 500 Pasadena, CA 91105 Susan E Powley Jenkens & Gilchrist PC 1445 Ross Ave Ste 3200 Dallas, TX 75202 Anthony R. Zeuli Merchant & Gould 3200 IDS Ctr 80 S 8th St Minneapolis, MN 55402-2215

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 756 - 7 Filed 04/17/2006

Page 13 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Charles Quinn Fish & Neave 1251 Ave of the Americas New York, NY 10020 James Samuel Rigberg Mariscal Weeks McIntyre & Friedlander PA 2901 N Central Ave Ste 200 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2705 Martin W Schiffmiller Kirschstein Ottinger Israel & Schiffmiller PC 489 5th Ave 17th Floor New York, NY 10017 Clyde A Shuman Cobrin & Gittes 750 Lexington Ave Ste 21 New York, NY 10022 George M Sirilla Pillsbury Winthrop LLP 1600 Tysons Blvd McLean, VA 22102 Bruce S Sostek Thompson & Knight LLP 1700 Pacific Ave Ste 3300 Dallas, TX 75201 Stefan V Stein Holland & Knight LLP 100 N Tampa St Ste 4100 Tampa, FL 33602-3644 Jay Todd Stewart Perkins Coie Brown & Bain PA PO Box 400 Phoenix, AZ 85001-0400 Mark Michael Supko Kenyon & Kenyon 1500 K St NW Ste 700 Washington, DC 20005-1257 Raymond L Sweigart Pillsbury Winthrop LLP 1600 Tysons Blvd McLean, VA 22102
Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH Document 756 - 8 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 14 of 16

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

William M Wesley McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd 500 W Madison St Ste 3400 Chicago, IL 60661 Christopher C Winslade McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd 500 W Madison St Ste 3400 Chicago, IL 60661 Darryl M Woo Fenwick & West LLP 275 Battery St Ste 1600 San Francisco, CA 94111-3305 Donald L Zachary Bass Berry & Sims PLC First American Ctr 315 Deaderick St Ste 2700 Nashville, TN 37238-0002 Elizabeth L Zepeda 600 Citadel Dr Commerce, CA 90040 Norman H Zivin Cooper & Dunham LLP 1185 Ave of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Thomas Zych Thompson Hine & Flory LLP 3900 Key Ctr 127 Public Sq Cleveland, OH 44114-1216 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. By: s/ Jennifer Hadley Dioguardi Laura Zeman (#014713) Jennifer Hadley Dioguardi (#018380) One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] -and-

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH

Document 756 - 9 Filed 04/17/2006

Page 15 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

Anthony R. Zeuli (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) MERCHANT & GOULD LLP 3200 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2215 Attorneys for Defendant Nash-Finch Company
38275.0001\DIOGUAJ\PHX\1821353.1

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:00-cv-00663-HRH Document 756- 10 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 16 of 16

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.