Free Objection - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Gary L. Birnbaum (#004386) [email protected] Timothy J. Thomason (#009869) [email protected] Scot L. Claus (#14999) [email protected] MARISCAL, WEEKS, MCINTYRE & FRIEDLANDER, P.A. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2705 Phone: (602) 285-5000 Fax: (602) 285-5100 Attorneys for Defendant Snell & Wilmer, LLP

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -1U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Document 427 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

BILTMORE ASSOCIATES, as Trustee for the Visitalk Creditors' Trust, Plaintiff, v. PETER THIMMESCH, et al., Defendants. 1. Peter Thimmesch Objections:

CASE NO. CV 02 2405 PHX HRH SNELL & WILMER'S OBJECTION AND COUNTER DESIGNATIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS (Assigned to the Honorable H. Russell Holland)

Defendant preserves and lodges the objections as set forth on the record regarding the Plaintiff's designation of Peter Thimmesch's Deposition sections. Counter-designations: 14:19-15:15 29:19-34:16 36:12-37:8

17

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

37:24-41:18 44:1-48:12 49:4-58:21 62:4-66:24 74:6-76:21 77:14-77:8 80:6-81:14 84:8-85:17 88:7-89:14 84:24-96:1 100:11-101:17 115:19-117:4 118:15-121:17 121:18-121:24 123:25-125:14 130:22-137:16 139:4-139:3 148:16-151:13 153:16-154:13 171:9-171:23 172:5-176:3 180:12-181:2 182:18-184:4 187:9-188:18 189:9-190:18

-2U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Document 427 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 2 of

17

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 2.

190:24-193:24 207:18-208:9 208:10-208:13 208:24-209:25 210:1-212:4 214:8-215:13 225:23-226:23 229:14-230:10 236:3-238:17 250:8-252:2 256:22-260:7 270:13-271:21 272:25-273:25 274:17-275:1 277:1-277:11 302:4-304:25 Stephen DelBianco Objections: 6:3 ­ 9:11- - Snell & Wilmer lodges the objections as contained in the record. 13:13 ­ 25 - - In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell & Wilmer also objects because the question calls for hearsay. 14:1-8 - - In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell & Wilmer also objects because the question calls for hearsay. 16:11-17:5 - - In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell & Wilmer also objects because the question calls for hearsay.

-3U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Document 427 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 3 of

17

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

17:13-18:2 - - In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell & Wilmer also objects because the question calls for hearsay. 20:6-22:7 - - In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell & Wilmer also objects because the question calls for hearsay. 23:15-25:6 - - Snell & Wilmer preserves and lodges the objections as stated on the record. 36:10-36:21 - - In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell & Wilmer also objects because the question calls for information outside the witness's personal knowledge, and calls for hearsay. 37:2-18 - - Snell & Wilmer preserves and lodges the objections as stated on the record. 43:19-44:4 - - In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell & Wilmer also objects because the question calls for information outside the witness's personal knowledge, calls for speculation, and calls for hearsay. 45:18-45:17 - - Snell & Wilmer preserves and lodges the objections as stated on the record. 46:18-48:1 - - Snell & Wilmer preserves and lodges the objections as stated on the record. 51:5-52:10 - - Snell & Wilmer preserves and lodges the objections as stated on the record. Counter-Designations: 9:12-12:7 18:5-19:20 35:16-36:9 42:15-43:18

-4U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Document 427 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 4 of

17

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 3.

52:21-55:11 55:14-57:6 60:19-62:7 65:10-66:6 68:2-68:3 Jeffrey Hirschberg Objections: 38:22-39:7 - - In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell & Wilmer also objects on the basis of lack of foundation, calls for information outside the witness's personal knowledge, calls for hearsay, and is leading. 41:22-42:6 - - In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell & Wilmer also objects because the question is leading, lacks foundation, and calls for information outside of the witness's personal knowledge. 47:5-48:18 - - In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell & Wilmer also objects on the basis that the question calls for speculation, calls for information outside of the witness's personal knowledge, calls for hearsay, lacks foundation, and is leading. 52:3-52:17 - - In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell & Wilmer also objects on the basis that the question calls for speculation, calls for information outside of the witness's personal knowledge, calls for hearsay, lacks foundation, and is leading. Counter-Designations: Snell & Wilmer incorporates by reference its designations contained in the December 20, 2007 Joint Pre-Trial Statement.

-5U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Document 427 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 5 of

17

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

4.

Steve Best Objections: 138:9-141:1 - - In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell &

Wilmer also objects to the question at 140:17 on the basis that the it calls for speculation, calls for information outside of the witness's personal knowledge, and is leading. Counter-Designations: 31:19-32:16 77:25-78:18 89:10-93:16 94:2-96:8 99:24-104:15 107:9-108:10 109:8-111:6 115:18-116:21 119:20-120:3 122:8-122:17 124:14-126:3 126:14-127:12 129:2-129:16 130:20-131:16 135:12-138:8 142:1-142:13 145:23-146:10 147:21-148:7

-6U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Document 427 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 6 of

17

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 5.

150:4-152:25 153:18-154:11 154:19-156:6 156:16-157:1 161:25-165:24 166:19-167:25 169:16-170:7 Robert Corry Objections: 21:5-34:14 -- Snell and Wilmer objects to the question at 26:19 because it lacks foundation, is speculative, is vague, and is irrelevant. 40:5-42:1 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to the question at 41:21 because it lacks foundation, is speculative, is vague, and is irrelevant. 65:11-68:9 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to this line of questioning because it is irrelevant in light of the Court's summary judgment rulings. 68:20-74:2 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to this line of questioning because it is irrelevant, given the Court's summary judgment rulings. Also, the question at 73:16 lacks foundation, calls for speculation, calls for hearsay, and is irrelevant. 78:25-85:21 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to this line of questioning on the grounds that it is irrelevant given the Court's summary judgment rulings regarding MP3.com. 36:11-97:20 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to the question at 97:11 because it lacks foundation, calls for speculation, is vague, and is leading.

-7U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Document 427 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 7 of

17

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

110:14-113:19 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to the question at 111:23 because it is leading, calls for speculation, lacks foundation, and is irrelevant. Snell and Wilmer withdraws it objection at 113:6. 119:13-121:11 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to this line of questioning on the grounds that it is irrelevant. 135:17-126:24 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to this line of questioning on the grounds that it is irrelevant, calls for hearsay, lacks foundation, and call for speculation. Counter-Designations: 10:18-13:15 18:7-21:4 34:15-36:2 38:11-39:4 42:16-43:17 46:17-46:21 47:20-49:22 51:7-52:25 54:4-54:13 60:6-61:2 64:2-65:10 68:10-68:19 74:3-74:13 77:10-78:22 90:12-91:10 94:6-96:10

-8U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Document 427 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 8 of

17

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 6.

97:21-99:15 100:9-102:17 107:25-109:12 110:1-110:11 113:20-116:5 123:10-125:8 126:25-127:12 127:17-131:11 131:25-132:12 132:17-132:23 133:10-136:9 136:17-140:5 140:18-140:25 142:22-144:2 148:8-148:20 149:4-151:15 151:19-154:4 154:8-168:10 Richard Rothwell Objections: 35:3-36:16 ­ Snell and Wilmer preserves and reasserts the objection lodged on the record, and that the question calls for hearsay. 43:24-46:3 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to the question at 43:24 because it lacks foundation, calls for hearsay, is vague, is irrelevant, and calls for information outside of the witness's personal knowledge. Snell and Wilmer objects to the question at 44:5

-9U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Document 427 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 9 of

17

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

for the same reasons. Snell and Wilmer objects to the question at 44:23 because it is irrelevant, lacks foundation, and refers to inadmissible hearsay. Snell and Wilmer lodge the same objection to the question at 44:8. 50:16-51:15 ­ Snell and Wilmer reasserts its objections lodged in the record. 53:25-56:1 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to the question at 54:11 because it lacks foundation, calls for hearsay, calls for a narrative, calls for information outside of the witnesses personal knowledge, and is irrelevant. 57:10-58:4 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to the line of questioning because it lacks foundation, Mr. Rothwell has not been qualified as an expert witness, Mr. Rothwell is not competent to otherwise answer the questions, the questions call for information outside of his personal knowledge, assumes facts not in evidence, and are irrelevant. 58:24-65:3 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to the question at 58:24 on the grounds that it lacks foundation, calls for speculation, assumes facts not in evidence, calls for hearsay, is leading, Mr. Rothwell has not been qualified as an expert, he is otherwise not competent to answer the question, assumes facts not in evidence. Snell and

Wilmer reasserts that objection for the questions at 59:11, 60:8, 60:12, and 61:1. 69:4-72:2 ­ Snell and Wilmer reasserts its objections on the record. In addition, the question at line 25 calls for a narrative, asks for information outside of the witness's personal knowledge, and is irrelevant. 73:8-74:3 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects on the grounds that the question lacks foundation, calls for hearsay, is outside of the witness's personal knowledge, and is leading. In addition, the question at 73:19 calls for speculation, lacks foundation, is leading, and calls for information outside of the witness's personal knowledge. 87:21-89:4 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to the question at 87:21 on the grounds that it calls for speculation, lacks foundation, is leading, calls for information outside

-10U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Document 427 Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Filed 01/02/2008 Page 10

of 17

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

of the witnesses personal knowledge, calls for hearsay, and is irrelevant. Snell and Wilmer incorporates that same objection to the question at 88:8. 90:2-18 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to the reasons stated on the record, and because the question calls for hearsay, calls for speculation, lacks foundation, and assumes facts not in evidence. 91:7-97:10 -- Snell and Wilmer reasserts the objections lodged on the record, and the question calls for a narrative, calls for hearsay, and is irrelevant. 144:16-145:2 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects because the answer is none responsive. Counter-Designations: 16:22-18:10 22:17-23:18 25:10-26:11 28:4-29:4 34:15-34:25 35:17-35:24 36:17-40:3 40:11-41:25 46:4-46:23 48:17-49:19 52:3-53:6 80:19-80:25 81:12-81:18 82:6-83:23 97:23-98:11 99:8-99:21

-11U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Document 427 Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Filed 01/02/2008 Page 11

of 17

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

100:16-101:16 102:12-102:13 103:24-104:4 104:11-104:25 106:2-107:14 108:5-108:10 108:21-110:19 111:4-115:8 116:18-118:1 121:12-122:13 122:20-123:3 124:4-124:9 124:21-125:11 126:12-128:9 129:23-131:20 132:5-132:19 133:21-135:24 136:6-136:15 138:15-139:7 140:10-140:13 141:7-144:6 145:3-146:3

-12U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Document 427 Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Filed 01/02/2008 Page 12

of 17

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

Richard Rothwell II: Objections: 180:18-185:11--Snell and Wilmer moves to strike on the basis that the answer is a narrative, and is nonresponsive. Counter-Designations: 154:5-154:13 154:24-156:6 157:8-159:21 160:22-161:2 164:11-165:14 166:5-167:15 168:20-174:23 175:17-176:21 177:23-178:11 178:16-180:9 185:12-188:12 190:3-190:10 195:4-198:25 201:16-202:3 202:4-207:19 208:12-220:5 220:10-223:5 223:23-227:2 227:8-230:20 231:1-231:19

-13U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Document 427 Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Filed 01/02/2008 Page 13

of 17

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

232:5-232:15 Richard Rothwell III: Objections: 240:8-243:22 ­ Snell and Wilmer reasserts it objections lodged in the record. In addition, the questions call for hearsay, are leading, lack foundation, call for undisclosed expert testimony, misstate testimony, and are inconsistent with prior answers. 243:23-248:7 ­ Snell and Wilmer reasserts its objections lodged on the record. In addition, the questions are leading, misstate testimony, call for speculation, calls for information outside of the witness's personal knowledge, call for hearsay, call for a legal conclusion, call for a narrative, and the witness is not competent to testify. Moreover, the testimony is irrelevant, given the timeframe and the questions. 249:3-250:14 ­ In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell and Wilmer objects on the grounds that the questions are leading, call for information outside of the witnesses personal knowledge, call for speculation, call for undisclosed and inappropriate opinion testimony, the witness is not competent to testify on the matters for which testimony is sought, the testimony is irrelevant, and the testimony lacks foundation. In addition, the questions are leading. 254:8-19 ­ In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell and Wilmer objects because the questions are irrelevant, call for speculation, and lack foundation. 259:6-260:9 ­ In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell and Wilmer objects because the questions are leading, lack foundation, call for information outside of the witnesses personal knowledge, call for speculation, call for hearsay, and misstate prior testimony.

-14U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Document 427 Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Filed 01/02/2008 Page 14

of 17

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

262:10-265:1 ­ In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell and Wilmer objects on the grounds that the questions lack foundation, call for information outside of the witness's personal knowledge, call for hearsay, call for undisclosed and improper opinion testimony for which the witness is not competent, and are leading. 266:21-270:23 -- In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell and Wilmer objects because the question is leading, misstates testimony, calls for information outside of the witnesses personal knowledge, calls for speculation, calls for hearsay, calls for undisclosed and improper opinion testimony for which the witness is not competent. In addition, the answer is non-responsive, and Snell and Wilmer incorporates the objection and motion lodged at 270:24. 271:12-271:20 -- In addition to the objections lodged in the record, Snell and Wilmer objects because it is an improper attempt to refresh memory pursuant to Rule 612, Federal Rules of Evidence. In addition, testimony is irrelevant and misstates evidence, and calls for hearsay. 276:14-280:3 ­ Snell and Wilmer objects to the narrative of the cited testimony because it does not begin with a question. In addition, the narrative testimony contains hearsay, is irrelevant given the Court's summary judgment ruling, lacks foundation, is an improper and undisclosed opinion for which the witness is not competent, and Snell and Wilmer incorporates by reference its objection and motion at 280:4. 280:7-288:8 ­ Snell and Wilmer incorporates and reasserts the objections found in the record. In addition, the question calls for an undisclosed and improper opinion for which the witness is not competent. Snell and Wilmer incorporates and reasserts the objection and motion at 283:2. Snell and Wilmer further incorporates and reasserts the objection and motion at 288:9.

-15U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Document 427 Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Filed 01/02/2008 Page 15

of 17

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

295:24-297:5 ­ Snell and Wilmer incorporates the objections lodged on the record. Counter-Designations: 253:14-253:24 298:1-299:25 303:24-304:17 307:17-309:24 314:5-314:22 323:7-324:22 325:25-328:14 328:15-333:22 333:23-334:20 338:16-342:22 346:3-350:14 350:24-351:23 357:21-359:8 DATED this 2nd day of January, 2008. MARISCAL, WEEKS, McINTYRE & FRIEDLANDER, P.A. By /s/ Timothy J. Thomason Gary L. Birnbaum Timothy J. Thomason Scot L. Claus 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 200 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2705 Attorneys for Defendant Snell & Wilmer, LLP

-16U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Document 427 Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Filed 01/02/2008 Page 16

of 17

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Biltmore Associates v. Peter Thimmesch, et al. (Case No. CV-02-2405-PHX-HRH) I hereby certify that on January 2, 2008, I electronically transmitted the attached document(s) to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Christopher R. Kaup [email protected] Tiffany & Bosco, P.A. Third Floor Camelback Esplanade II 2525 East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4237 Special Counsel for the Plaintiff I hereby certify that on January 2, 2008, I caused the attached document to be served by federal express on: HON. H. RUSSELL HOLLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 222 West 7th Avenue ­ No. 54 Anchorage Alaska 99513 (Ph: 907) 677-6252 I hereby certify that on January 2, 2008, I caused the attached document to be served by first class mail on the following, who are not registered participants of the CM/ECF System: Peter Thimmesch 11337 Stonehouse Place Potomac Falls, Virginia 20165-5123 Defendant Pro Se MARISCAL, WEEKS, McINTYRE & FRIEDLANDER, P.A. By: /s/ Cheryl LoStracco

21 22 23 24 25 26 -17U:\ATTORNEYS\TJT\Snell & Wilmer adv. Visitalk\Snell Objection & Counter Desigs to Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc\Snell's Objection & Counter Desigs to Document 427 Case 2:02-cv-02405-HRH Plf's Depo Desigs (Efiled 1-2-07 CML).doc Filed 01/02/2008 Page 17

of 17