Free Supplement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

4 if LAW OFFICES
BEALE,
Mrcr~rAr;r. A. Beau; * MICHEAELS
IOHN A. MIQHHAELS * & SLAQK
K. THOMAs SLAQK °* [ILC.
Kate Kilbane Thompson, R. N., Nurse Consultant NORMAN D. HALL
Pamela 1. Kieffer, c. L. A. s., ceffqfea paralegal/ojyfee Aammfeffafef 0** COUNSEL
Michelle A. Worhacz, Paralegal TRACY
Writer 's Direct Line:
(602) 650-2465
[am@,beale-micheacls. c0m
Via Facsimile and E-Mail
October 17, 2005
James W. Bamhouse, Esq.
RENAUD, COOK & DRURY, P.A.
40 North Central Avenue, #1600
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Re: Mikkelsen v. CHR, Faiver, Rich
Dear J im:
By e—mail timed at 2:52 p.m. today, defendants forwarded to me their input into the
Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order, which I had provided to defendants at our meeting on
October 3, 2005. In defendants’ revision to that Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order,
defendants have obviously done the following:
1. Made numerous changes to plaintiffs’ proposed uncontested facts.
2. Made numerous changes to the contested issues of fact and law, including
inserting for the first time defendants’ contentions (starting at page 13, line 15
- defendants’ factual issues 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e) and 1(t), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c)
and 2(d)) and defendants’ contentions of law (starting at page 24, line 1 -
issues 1, 2 and 3), never previously raised by defendants.
3. Defendants have raised for the first time objections to plaintiffs’ exhibits.
4. Defendants have listed for the first time objections to plaintiffs’ designations
from the depositions of Ofel Diaz and Roderic Gottula, and
1440 E. MISSOURI AVENUE, SUITE 150, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85014
Case 2=¤2·¤V·¤225%.;ft{-,*.10ne Qanfmfat26@»a%fme§ftff¢f@f?laaf2¤¤5 Page 1 0* 2
*State Bar Certified Specialist — Personal Injury and Wrongful Death

LAW OFFICES
BEALE,
MICHEAELS
a SLACK
p.C.
October 17, 2005
Page 2
5. Defendants have listed voluminous deposition designations from 19
depositions.
As I told you and Paul Urlich this afternoon, there is no wayI can review defendants ’
si gniiicant chan ges/additions to plaintiffs’ Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Order and make any
meaningful additions of my own (including inserting Plaintiffs Mikkelsen’s contentions to
defendants’ newly raised issues of fact and law, Plaintiffs Mikkelsen’s admissibility
objections and additional portions of deposition testimony from the deposition testimony
designated by defendants) by today at 4:00 p.m. Indeed, given that I am scheduled to be in
a full day mediation tomorrow, and am in the process of trial preparation for another case
(which trial begins next week)), I do not know when I will have time to provide you with
any meaningful input from Plaintiffs Mikkelsen to defendants’ revisions to the Joint
Proposed Final Pretrial Order received this afternoon. Jim, this obviously is exactly what
I have been concerned about and discussed with Gordon Cook and you over the last two
weeks. Thanks.
Yours very truly,
J icheaels
JAM/sk
c: A. James Clark, Esq. w/enc.
Michael Aboud, Esq. w/enc.
Case 2:02-cv-02252-JAT Document 263-3 Filed 10/19/2005 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-02252-JAT

Document 263-3

Filed 10/19/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-02252-JAT

Document 263-3

Filed 10/19/2005

Page 2 of 2