Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 LAW OFFICE
STUART REILLY, P.C.
2 PO Box 80410
Phoenix, Arizona 85060-0410
3 Telephone: 602/912-9200
4 E-mail: [email protected]
Stuart]. Reilly, #005275
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 .
Stuart J. Reilly, )
10 ) Case No. CIV O2-2218 PHX BTM
Plaintiff, )
11 )
vs. ) PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
12 ) 1>EFEN1>ANTs* MOTION IN
13 Charles M. Brewer, Ltd. Profit Sharing Plan ) LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
and Trust, a retirement plan, Charles M. ) EXCERPTS OF THE
14 Brewer, Ltd. Restated Pension Plan, a ) DEPOSITION OF JAY BELTZ
retirement plan, and Charles M. Brewer, )
15 )
Defendants. ) Trial Date: April 18, 2006
I6 ) Time: 10:30 a.m.
) Courtroom: 601
17 )
18 )
19 Plaintiff submits his Response to Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude the
2Q Excerpts of the Deposition of J ay Beltz.
2] MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
22 The matter of Jay Beltz’ trial testimony should not have suddenly occurred to defense
23 counsel. In fact, when Plaintiff listed Mr. Beltz as a live trial witness in a draft of an earlier
24 Proposed Pretrial Order, he was lectured by the defense that Mr. Beltz lives in Las Vegas,
25 Nevada and could not be subpoenaed for trial.
26 Defendants maintained a professional affiliation with Mr. Beltz after he left CBIZ and
moved to Las Vegas. As the third party administrator of the Brewer, Ltd. pension plans,
Ca 2:02-cv-02218-BTIVI-LSP Document 259 Filed O4/13/2006 Page 1 of 3

1 Mr. Beltz is apparently agreeable to a request by Defendants to appear in Phoenix.] Plaintiff
2 has no such close relationship with Mr. Beltz.
3 Clearly, Mr. Beltz’ willingness to appear is not a sudden development. This motion
4 should have been made in a timely manner so that it would have been dealt with in the regular
5 course of pretrial preparation. Live testimony is preferable to deposition submissions.
6 Consequently, if Mr. Beltz does appear in Court, it will not be necessary for Plaintiff to have
7 the lengthy portions of his deposition testimony read at trial that are the subject of Defendants’
8 Motion in Limine.
9 CONCLUSION
10 Defendants’ Motion in Limine is untimely and should be denied.
1 1
12 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of April 2006.
13 STUART J. REILLY, P.C.
14
1 5 s/ Stuart J- Reilly
Stuart J. Reilly
16 Attorney for Plaintiff
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1 Mr. Beltz’ Declaration shows that he also traveled to Los Angeles, California, presumably at
Defendants’ request to make his declaration.
Ca 2:02—cv—02218—BT|VI—LSP Document 259 Filed O4/13/2006 Page 2 of 3

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that on April 13, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the
3 Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic
Filing to be electronically mailed to:
4
Ed Hendricks, Esq.
5 Michael K. Dana, Esq.
MEYER HENDRICKS PLLC
6 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85012
7
8 Michael Vanic, Esq.
C. Frederick Reish, Esq.
9 REISH LUFTMAN REICHER & COHEN
11755 Wilshire Blvd., 10th Floor
1Q Los Angeles, CA 90025-1539
1 1
12 Courtesy copy of the attached document and the proposed order faxed and mailed this 13th day
13 of April 2006 to:
14 Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Court
15 5160 Courthouse
940 Front Street
16 San Diego, CA 92101
17 s/ Marisa J Reilly
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Ca 2:02—cv—02218—BTIVI—LSP Document 259 Filed O4/13/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 259

Filed 04/13/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 259

Filed 04/13/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 259

Filed 04/13/2006

Page 3 of 3