Free Supplement - 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
E—mail: [email protected]
4
Stuart]. Reilly, #005275
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9
10 Stuart J. Reilly, ) Case No. CIV 02-2218 PHX BTM
)
ll Plaintiff, ) SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S
) REPLY TO BREWER DEFENDANTS’
12 vs. ) RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
) MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING
13 Charles M. Brewer, Ltd. Profit Sharing Plan ) DEFENDANTS TO: (1) COMPLY
and Trust, a retirement plan; Charles M. ) WITH PREVIOUS DISCOVERY
14 Brewer, Ltd. Restated Pension Plan, a ) ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 37(b)
1 5 retirement plan; and Charles M. Brewer, ) AND (2) PRODUCE CURRENT
) FINANCIAL REPORTS PURSUANT
16 Defendants. ) TO 29 U.S.C. § l132(c)
)
17 ) AND PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
) BREWER DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST
18 ) FOR SANCTIONS
19 The Plaintiff, Stuart J. Reilly, hereby supplements his Reply to Brewer Defendants’
2() Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Directing Defendants to: (1) Comply With Previous
21 Discovery Order Pursuant to Rule 37(b) and (2) Produce Current Financial Reports Pursuant to
22 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c). Defendants’ untimely Declaration of Michael A. Vanic in support of
23 Brewer Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’ s motion was filed on October 20, 2005—the same
24 day Plaintiff filed his reply. Plaintiff files this supplement to address the content of
25 Mr. Vanic’s declaration.
26 _1_
SUPPLEMENT TO PLAlNTlFF’S REPLY ro BREWER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE ro PLAINTlFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING
DEEENDANrs ro; (U COMPLY Wim RREvtoUs DISCOVERY ORDER PURSUANT ro RULE im;) AND (D PRODUCE CURRENT FINANCIAL
REPORTS PURSUANT TO zo Use. R l132(c) AND PLAlNTIFF’S RESPONSE ro BREWER DEFENDANTS` REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
o 9 2:02-cv-0221 8-BT|\W§liSlPV`CNBoLdBti)1}eOr‘iiT2S2l0RlNGPIflbli:lAll0ll2llJf2OF05AL Page 1 Dt 4

1 Defendants wanted a private mediation and they belabor that point for nine pages in
2 Mr. Vanic’s declaration. Defendants are displeased that Plaintiff chose a court administered
3 mediation over the $6,600/day private mediation they had scheduled.
4 Plaintiff’ s reply has addressed most of the issues raised in Mr. Vanic’s declaration, but
5 numbers 5, 6, 8 and l7 require the following clarification:
6 5. Plaintiff has no recollection of any requests by Defendants regarding a
7 settlement conference or mediation prior to the June 2, 20051 meeting. At no
8 time did Plaintiff express an opinion as to whether or not Defendants’ $100,000
9 settlement offer was made in good faith. On the contrary, Plaintiff thought
10 Defendants’ offer was woefully inadequate, but conceded that he should have
11 responded.
12 6. The parties conferred on June 2, 2005 regarding the proposed Joint Pretrial
13 Conference Order and discussed which discovery documents would be used as
14 trial exhibits. Plaintiff stated his displeasure at the uselessness of the heavily
15 redacted documents Defendants produced pursuant to Judge Carroll’s order and
16 requested tmredacted copies.
17 8. Plaintiff"s July l, 2005 settlement letter stated the bases upon which his benefits
18 should be calculated, but could not set forth a specific demand amount because
19 Defendants had not yet provided the requested financial data.
2() l7. In his September l4, 2005 telephone conversation, Plaintiff did not tell
21 Mr. Vanic that he would return the signed mediation agreement to Mr. Krivis.
22 Plaintiff was deliberately noncommittal because he was seriously considering
23
24
25 I The meeting, originally scheduled for May 26, 2005, was postponed one week when Plaintiff` s son
developed leg and hip complications that required emergency hospitalization.
26 _2_
Ca 9 2:02-cv—O2218—BTI\}iiIli|§|¥’V`Cli5PE5i“:i1DmPghil2§ii>{\RINCl;%léidPi]l)%B1ll2i)0i5AL Page 2 of 4

1 the settlement conference option recommended by the Court at the status
2 conference on August 5, 2005.
3
4 SUBMITTED this 21st day of October 2005.
5 STUART J. REILLY, P.C.
6
7 s/ Stuart J. Reilly
Stuart J. Reilly
8 Attorney for Plaintiff
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 _3_
DE‘“‘§’§?3E5E§JS;§8§§¥‘¥é§9“GE¥f“‘f§lY§§3S.BL%€5,5§¥l?§2'i&§5§§E€¥§QEQEEE iié?é$SEé?§’%%B‘5tEST“€§§E2L§¥T8S§‘AL
Ca G 2:02-cv-02218—BTI\lIi-]lllSE’V"Cll)Bol“:l1Drri)gglflE2]Jl·$i`lilNGPPll$`dIiN&Bill2TO0l5AL Page 3 of 4

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
3 I hereby certify that on October 21, 2005, I electronically transmitted the attached document to
the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of
4 Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:
5 Ed Hendricks, Esq.
Michael K. Dana, Esq.
6 MEYER, HENDRICKS & BIVEN, P.A.
3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
7 Phoenix, AZ 85012
8 Michael Vanic, Esq.
9 C. Frederick Reish, Esq.
REISH LUFTMAN REICHER & COHEN
10 11755 Wilshire Blvd., 10m Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1539
11
12 Courtesy copy of the attached document mailed this 21st day of October 2005 to:
13 Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Court
14 5160 Courthouse
940 Front Street
15 San Diego, CA 92101
16 s/ Marisa J Reilly
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 _4_
SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFF`S REPLY TO BREWER DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO: (I) COMPLY WITH PREVIOUS DISCOVERY ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 37(B) AND (2) PRODUCE CURRENT FINANCIAL
REPORTS PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § ll32(c) AND PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO BREWER DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
1 v. c ,mo.pRoi=1r s Rmo AN R
Ca 9 2:02-cv-O2218—BTI\ll{Fl.LSlE’ Yiocument 2% €he¤A1NE"L Page 4 of 4

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

Document 223

Filed 10/21/2005

Page 1 of 4

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

Document 223

Filed 10/21/2005

Page 2 of 4

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

Document 223

Filed 10/21/2005

Page 3 of 4

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

Document 223

Filed 10/21/2005

Page 4 of 4