Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Me1·chant T ransac!i0n Systems, Inc.
Nelcela, Inc., et al. Q
And related Cr0ss and T/1ird—Party Claims
N0. CI V-02-1 954-PHX-MHM
(Nelcela, Inc., Len Campagna and Alec D0llarhide’s
Response t0 J0inz‘ Parties’ M0ti011 in Limine N0. 1 Y
t0 Exclude T estim0ny 0f Expert Kevin Faulkner)
EXHIBIT E
(Letter by Veronica Manolio dated 11/29/06)
Case 2:O2—cv—O1954-I\/IHI\/I Document 433-6 Filed O2/O2/2007 Page 1 of 3 1

o Hunan
Firestone P
9300 Em R¤l¤lT°€ DWG 0 Attorneys and éloirnselurs 1 0
Suite 120
S<>¤T¥Sd¤l€l AZ 85260 Veronica L. Manolio 1
480 222-9100 • Fax 480 222-9106 vmanolio@ronan—iirestone.com
wwwronan-firestone.co1n
. November 29, 2006 L
Kimberly Demarchi Sent Via Facsimile (602) 734-3 773
Lewis & Roca, LLP and Electronic Mail Only y
40 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429
Re: M TSI v. Nelcela and related Counterclaims, Crass-Claims and T h ird~par(y claims,
CIV 02-1954 PHX MHM l }
Dear Kim:
l received your letter dated November 28, 2006 regarding expert testimony at trial.
First of all, you are correct that Nelcela will not call Mr. DeCicco to testify at trial in this
matter. As we informed all parties and counsel late last year, Mr. DeCicco is no longeriemployed l A
by P.G. Lewis & Associates (which is now actually Protiviti, after the companies’ merger last year).
Mr. DeCicco is believed to be working for a competitor of Protiviti and cannot be used on this case. ;
When we candidly disclosed Mr. DeCicco’s departure, we also agreed that Mr. Faulkner
could be deposed as he will be acting as the expert in Mr. DeCicco’s stead. We have no problem {
allowing Post (or one counsel for the Joint Parties) to depose Mr. Faulkner. Our disagreement lies
in your position that you want to depose Mr. Faulkner but will still, "challenge the admissibility" of p
his testimony. We have no interest in wasting any party’ s time, money or energy for this deposition i {
if Post is going to later challenge the use of Mr. Faulkner and/or his deposition testimony at trial.
We suggest getting this issue resolved by the Court before setting the deposition.
We have a similar need to re—depose Post’ s expert, Robert Zeidman, on the limited issues of:
1) His Addenda/Amended Expert Report; 2) l-lis recent "Redline Comparison" report; and 3) Any i {
and all documents, preparation, and! or analysis regarding anything done aiter his tirst deposition. 1 i
Rather than wasting the Courts time, my suggestion is that we agree to the speciiic 1
parameters of Post deposing Mr. Faulkner — including the anticipated time limitation(s) and that one .
person will depose him for the Joint Parties collectively, and we agree to the scope of continued J
deposition of Mr. Zeidman. We can then jointly submit a Stipulation to the Court and ask approval ¤ Y
to conduct this discovery even though Judge Murguia already clearly ruled that discovery is closed.
We are not about to disobey the Court’s present order(s) and believe we need approval/authority to {
Case 2:02-cv-01954-IVIHIVI Document 433-6 Filed O2/O2/2007 Page 2 of 3 J

Ms. Kimberly Dernarchi
November 29, 2006
Page 2
agree to any further depositions. We also believe it is in every party’s best interest to address the
items of disagreement before setting the depositions.
I look forward to hearing back from you and will be happy to work with you to resolve these
issues and get depositions underway. ‘
Sincerely, J
17%// M r
Veronica L. Manolio e ’
cc: All Counsel (via e-mail only) e
Case 2:02-cv-01954-IVIHIVI Document 433-6 Filed O2/O2/2007 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 433-6

Filed 02/02/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 433-6

Filed 02/02/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 433-6

Filed 02/02/2007

Page 3 of 3