Untitled

From: Han, Sam S. Ph.D

Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:13 PM
To: 'JLDickerson@mijs.com'
Cc: 'jad@mijs.com'; 'ebasham@mijs.com'; Han, Sam S. Ph.D
Subject: Moses v. Traton et al.: Civ. Action No. 05-1-8395-35

Dear Mr. Dickerson:

We have received your fax alleging that our Second Request for
Production and Second Request for Admissions are solely propounded for
the purposes of harassment and delay. We disagree with your assessment,
and provide our response to your "good faith effort" below.
We have propounded our requests as a result of Traton's failure or
refusal to properly answer our First Request for Admissions.
Specifically, Traton has denied that Mr. Moses has complained about the
destruction of his yard. Additionally, in Traton's answers and
responses, Traton has repeatedly alleged that Mr. Moses' questions and
requests are overly broad and vague.
In an effort to avoid Traton's objections that our requests are overly
broad and vague, we have broken down each request into very
narrowly-focused questions and requests. It is inevitable that such a
breakdown will result in numerous questions. However, each request
seeks a fact or opinion that is relevant to the claims against Traton.
Hopefully, the questions in the Second Request for Admissions have now
been crafted to specifically target various facts that Mr. Moses hopes
to conclusively establish, thereby removing those issues from trial.
Given the specificity of each Request for Admission, it should take less
than a minute for Traton Corp. to answer each question. In short, it
should take less than four (4) hours to complete the responses for the
Request for Admissions. We hardly consider four hours to be unduly
burdensome to Traton, especially since Traton is responsible for
escalating this case to its current status. Also, given that it will
likely take more time to file a motion for a protective order, we are
puzzled as to why Traton would not simply spend four hours to answer the
simple and straightforward requests to admit.

If you recall, Mr. Moses had offered to dismiss this case if Traton was
simply agreeable to meeting with Mr. Moses to rationally discuss this
issue. Despite the fact that Mr. Moses made such a generous offer,
Traton declined and indicated that it would pursue this matter through
the courts. Given Traton's stubbornly litigious posture, Mr. Moses can
hardly be blamed for Traton's decision to shoulder the burden and
expense of litigation. In fact, Mr. Moses is likewise annoyed that
Traton has unjustifiably escalated this matter, and plans to seek
attorneys fees for Traton's stubborn litigiousness.
Next, you have not indicated how each of the Request for Admissions is
irrelevant. Insofar as each question is relevant to a fact or legal
position that Mr. Moses hopes to establish, it is axiomatic that those
questions cannot be propounded SOLELY for the purpose of harassment or
annoyance. If Traton is willing to admit the following, then Mr. Moses
may be agreeable to withdrawing many of the queries in his Second
Request for Admissions:
(1) Mr. Moses has a possessory interest in the entire yard, up
to and including the curb (i.e., that the entire yard is indeed Mr.
Moses' yard);
(2) a portion of Mr. Moses' yard has been damaged;
(3) Traton, either directly or indirectly, damaged that portion
of Mr. Moses' yard;
Page 1
 Untitled
(4) agents of Traton subsequently entered onto Mr. Moses' yard,
again; and
(5) all of those entries onto Mr. Moses' property were without
permission.
Continuing, there are fourteen (14) categories of documents that we have
requested in our Request for Production of Documents. Each of those
requests is directed to communications to (or from) officers or agents
of Traton Corp. Since a corporation necessarily acts through its
officers and agents, it can hardly be disputed that the communications
of the officers is irrelevant or not likely to lead to discoverable
evidence.

In your "good faith effort," you have provided ZERO rationale for why
any of the requests for production are irrelevant. You merely indicate,
in a conclusory manner, that the materials are not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. We hardly consider
such conclusory statements, without ANY explanation, a "good faith
effort."

Please note that we have been extremely generous in our dealings with
Mr. Daxe relating to discovery. As of today, we have requested the
responsive materials from our FIRST Request for Production FIVE times.
These are the same materials that should have been produce by early
December. Additionally, despite Traton's delay, we have been generous
in accommodating your needs for additional time to respond.

Conversely, Traton has been less than cooperative in discovery. Your

fax today constitutes the SECOND time that your "good faith effort" has
been nothing more than a SINGLE communication. Since we didn't even
know that we were in dispute over these matters until your fax, we
hardly consider that SAME fax (which identifies the dispute) to be a
good faith effort to resolve the dispute.

In any event, we have provided you with all of the reasons for why the
Second Requests are not propounded for the purposes of harassment, and
how we believe that each request is relevant to this matter. As such,
we shall not be withdrawing our requests unless Traton admits liability
for the damage to Mr. Moses' yard.

We look forward to receiving your response, both to our Second Request

for Admissions and our Second Request for Production of documents.

Please convey our best to Mr. Daxe, should you speak to him before he
receives this email message. Since we have promised to provide him
until Tuesday to answer our latest query, we shall keep our promise.
Sincerely,

Sam Han
--
Sam S. Han, Ph.D., J.D.
McGuireWoods LLP
The Proscenium
1170 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Suite 2100
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-7649
--
Phone: 404.443.5728
Fax: 404.443.5797
Mobile: 404.514.8237
--
email: shan@mcguirewoods.com
Page 2
 Untitled
--
This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you
are not the intended recipient, please advise by return e-mail and
delete immediately without reading or forwarding to others.

Page 3