Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

40 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4429 Facsimile (602) 734-3746 Telephone (602) 262-5311 Peter D. Baird (001978) ( [email protected]) Robert H. McKirgan (011636) ([email protected]) Richard A. Halloran (013858) ([email protected]) Kimberly A. Demarchi (020428) ([email protected]) Attorneys for POST Integrations, Inc., et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Merchant Transaction Systems, Inc., ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) Nelcela, Inc., an Arizona Corporation; Len ) Campagna, an Arizona Resident; Alec ) Dollarhide, an Arizona Resident; Ebocom, ) Inc., a Delaware Corporation; POST ) Integrations, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) And related cross and third-party claims. ) ) No. CIV 02-1954-PHX-MHM NOTICE OF FILING RULE 56(f) DECLARATION (Assigned to The Honorable Mary H. Murguia)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), the POST Parties (POST

17 Integrations, Inc., Ebocom, Inc., Mary Gerdts, and Douglas McKinney) hereby file the 18 attached Rule 56(f) affidavit in support of their opposition to Nelcela's pending motion for 19 summary judgment. 20 As noted in that opposition, the proceedings in this case have been bifurcated into

21 two phases: Phase I, to cover issues of ownership, and Phase II, to address issues of 22 infringement, damages, and any remaining claims. Despite having drafted the stipulation 23 bifurcating the case, counsel for Nelcela have now filed for summary judgment on 24 numerous claims involving issues other than the Phase I issue of ownership. 25 The bifurcation of this case alone precludes summary judgment in Nelcela's favor

26 on any claims involving issues other than ownership at this time. However, in an 27 abundance of caution, the POST Parties additionally file the attached Rule 56(f) affidavit, 28 setting forth the additional discovery that would be taken in Phase II relevant to the claims
Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM Document 376 Filed 09/07/2006 Page 1 of 3
1766804.1

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 27 28

on which Nelcela improperly seeks summary judgment. See U.S. v. Kitsap Physicians Svc., 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rule 56(f) affidavit, if required, must be filed prior to oral argument on the motion for summary judgment). As set forth in detail in the affidavit, counsel has reason to believe that the evidence described would preclude summary judgment in Nelcela's favor on the Phase II claims. DATED this 7th day of September, 2006 LEWIS AND ROCA LLP

By

s/Kimberly A. Demarchi Peter D. Baird Robert H. McKirgan Richard A. Halloran Kimberly A. Demarchi Attorneys for POST Integrations, Inc., Ebocom, Inc., Mary L. Gerdts, and Douglas McKinney

Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

Document 376 2 Filed 09/07/2006

Page 2 of 3

1766804.1

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 27 28
Case 2:02-cv-01954-MHM

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 7, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Merrick B. Firestone [email protected] Veronica L. Manolio [email protected] Ronan & Firestone, PLC 9300 East Raintree Drive, Suite 120 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Attorneys for Defendants Nelcela Incorporated, Alec Dollarhide, and Len Campagna Nicholas J. DiCarlo [email protected] DiCarlo Caserta & Phelps, PLLC 6750 East Camelback Road, Suite 103 Scottsdale, Arizona 85251Attorney for Plaintiff MTSI and Third Party Defendant Gene Clothier George Chen [email protected] Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 Attorneys for Lexcel William McKinnon [email protected] 800 East Ocean Boulevard, Unit 501 Long Beach, California 90802-5449 Attorney for Plaintiff MTSI and Third Party Defendant Gene Clothier

s/ Debi Garrett

Document 376 3 Filed 09/07/2006

Page 3 of 3

1766804.1