Free Reply - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

RYLEY CARLOCK & APPLEWHITE One North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4417 Telephone: 602/258-7701 Telecopier: 602/257-9582 Michael D. Moberly ­ 009219 Andrea G. Lisenbee - 019882 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA AMMAR HALLOUM, Plaintiff, vs. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant. INTEL CORPORATION, Counterclaimant, vs. AMMAR HALLOUM and SAWSAN HAMAD, Counterdefendants. The plaintiff has opposed the request of defendant Intel Corporation ("Intel" or the "Company") to postpone the trial of this matter until its principal witness, Paul Callaghan, returns from his prepaid sabbatical. However, none of the reasons the plaintiff has offered for opposing the Company's request are persuasive. First, the plaintiff asserts that postponing the trial will cause him "more agony, and depression," and that "putting a closure on this case" is essential to improving his health. This assertion is belied by the plaintiff's own recent decision to appeal the United States Department of Labor's ruling in favor of the Company in the DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL No. CIV-02-02245-PHX-EHC

Case 2:02-cv-02245-EHC

706987.1 5/17/2006

Document 154

Filed 05/17/2006

Page 1 of 5

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

related case the plaintiff brought against the Company under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Ninth Circuit's briefing schedule in that case is such that the matter undoubtedly will not be concluded before the trial of this matter, regardless of whether the requested continuance is granted. Thus, granting the requested continuance clearly will not, as a practical matter, delay the closure of the plaintiff's dispute with Intel in any meaningful way. The plaintiff also asserts that rescheduling the trial "will be very frustrating to the doctors" he intends to call as witnesses, and speculates that those witnesses may be unavailable at a later date. However, there are numerous ways to accommodate any future scheduling conflicts of the doctors or any other potential witnesses if any such conflicts should ultimately arise. In any event, the credibility of the plaintiff's speculative assertion is completely undermined by his own statement later in his opposition that although he opposes the Company's requested continuance, he has no objection to "advancing" the trial to commence on an earlier date. It is difficult to comprehend how accelerating the trial on virtually no advance notice to the witnesses would be any less frustrating or inconvenient for them than continuing it in accordance with the Company's request. The plaintiff also accuses the Company of attempting to deceive the Court regarding his request at the prior pretrial conference that the Court avoid scheduling the trial so as to conflict with his own travel plans in June and July. However, it would hardly be prudent for the Company to misrepresent statements the plaintiff made to the Court itself, which can easily be verified by reviewing a transcript of the hearing. In that regard, and contrary to the plaintiff's inference, the Company specifically acknowledged in its motion to continue that it was not clear from the plaintiff's statements at the hearing whether or not he actually had a direct conflict with the present trial scheduling. The point the Company was making instead was that it

Case 2:02-cv-02245-EHC

Document 154

-2-

Filed 05/17/2006

Page 2 of 5

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

voiced no objection to the plaintiff's request that his potential scheduling conflicts be accommodated, and that it would be appropriate for the plaintiff to extend the Company, and specifically Mr. Callaghan, the same courtesy here. The plaintiff obviously has chosen not to do that. He instead asserts that he is "very suspicious of Intel's excuse since in different cases, Intel has used the technique of continuing trials in the last minutes due to business activities of witnesses, or vacation times." Significantly, the plaintiff cites no prior example of this alleged conduct, and his assertion is flatly untrue. Despite his reference to "cases" in the plural, the plaintiff could only be referring to the Sarbanes-Oxley case discussed above, because that is the only other matter in which the plaintiff and the Company are both parties that has ever been scheduled for trial. The trial of that matter, which was held before an administrative law judge, was conducted on nonconsecutive days over a period of several weeks. While one of the trial days was continued on little advance notice, that was done on the judge's own initiative due to his personal illness, and not at the request of the Company. The trial otherwise proceeded entirely as scheduled. Finally, the plaintiff asserts that the requested continuance is unwarranted because Mr. Callaghan purportedly can "easily" delay his sabbatical and start his vacation at the conclusion of the trial as presently scheduled. Under the unique

circumstances present here, that is simply not true, for the reasons discussed in the Company's motion. // //

Case 2:02-cv-02245-EHC

Document 154

-3-

Filed 05/17/2006

Page 3 of 5

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 matter.

The Company shares the plaintiff's desire for a prompt resolution of this Nevertheless, the Company submits that granting the continuance it has

requested in this instance is warranted under the circumstances it has presented. Accordingly, the Company again respectfully requests that the Court postpone the trial of this matter until a date convenient for the Court after the conclusion of Mr. Callaghan's sabbatical on July 24, 2006. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of May, 2006. RYLEY CARLOCK & APPLEWHITE s/ Michael D. Moberly Michael D. Moberly Andrea G. Lisenbee One N. Central Ave., Ste. 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4417 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant

Case 2:02-cv-02245-EHC

Document 154

-4-

Filed 05/17/2006

Page 4 of 5

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 17, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing. I hereby certify that on May 17, 2006, I served the attached document by mail on the following, who are not registered participants of the CM/ECF System: Ammar Halloum P.O. Box 26662 Tempe, AZ 85285 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Sawsan Hamad 260 W. Buena Vista Dr. Tempe, Arizona 85284 Counterdefendant

s/ Michael D. Moberly Michael D. Moberly

Case 2:02-cv-02245-EHC

Document 154

-5-

Filed 05/17/2006

Page 5 of 5