February 27, 2006, Email from Traton to Mr. Moses Exhibit T 20Fwd Moses v. Traton Civ. Action No, 05-1-8395-35.txt From: Kevin Moore Joanne Tden’<3krden@mi js-com Dear Mr. Hans, Again, I very much appreciated our discussion today and hope that we can continue to interact in such a professional manner despite our client's respective differences. However, with respect to the settlement offer submitted by Mr. Moses, please allow this email correspondence to serve as a formal response. First, at this time, my clients cannot accept the terms of Mr. Moses’ offer. clients strongly believe that no basis for liability exists as alleged by Mr. Moses; and as such, neither repair nor apologies are warranted. Additionally, any meeting at this time would be unproductive given the events of this lawsuit. Certainly, my Clients have no intention of tortiously trespassing upon the property of Wr. Moses in the future; and deny that any such actions have occurred previously. Given these Circumstances, the offer by Mr. Moses is not acceptable. As you have stated, I, too, desire to see this matter resolved without resorting to further litigation. Aowever, at this time, we must move forward through the discovery process as there does not exist any common ground upon which our espective clients can build a resolution. we anticipate responding to discovery as outlined in your previous email and will certainly honor all previous commitments and agreements as we discussed. with kindest regards, 3. Kevin Moore attorney Moore Ingram Johnson & Steele, LLP. 192 anderson Street Narietta, GA 30060 770-429-1499 {phone] 770-429-8631. [Fax] etp: //www.mijs.com Confidentiality Notice This email and all attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and intended SOLELY for the recipients as identified in the "To", "ce" and “Bcc” lines of this email. If you are not an intended recipient, your receipt of this email and its attachments is the result of an inadvertent disclosure or unauthorized transmittal. Sender reserves and asserts all rights to confidentiality, including all privileges which may apply. Pursuant to those rights and privileges, immediately DELETE and DESTROY all copies of the email and its attachments, in whatever form, and immediately NOTIFY the Sender OF your receipt of this email. D0 NOT review, copy, or rely on,in any way the Contents of this email and its attachments. All rights of’ the sender for violations of the confidentiality and privileges applicable to this emai] and any attachments are expressly reserved. This E-mavl Cincluding attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC Sections 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. -original Message- : From: Sam Han, P.c. [mailto:sam.han.pc@gmai1. com] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 1:02 PM To: Kevin Noore; Jeff Dickerson Cc: Sam Han; David Spruell; Daniel De woskin Page 1Fwd Moses v. Traton Civ. Action No. 05-1-8395-35.txt Moses v. Traton: Civ. Action No. 05-1-8395-35 Subjec bear Mr. Moore: We hope that this email message finds you doing well. As of 08 February 2006, Traton had withdrawn their Motion for Protective order and removed the hearing from the court calendar. However, prior to the withdrawal of the motion and removal of the hearing, Mr. Moses had, through Mr. Pekar, dispatched his Fesponse to the Motion for Protective order. part of that response included a draft of a memorandum, which detailed the reasons for why Mr. Moses' Second Request for Admissions were relevant and should be answered. “that correspondence also indicated that the draft response, and Mr. Pekor's letter itself, served as Mr. Moses’ Rule 6.4 good faith effort to confer prior to moving for attorneys" fees. In view of Traton's withdrawal of the motion for protective order, I had noted to Mr. Dickerson that Traton's response to Plaintiff's Second Request for Admissions was now overdue and, hence, all of the requests for admissions stood admitted as a matter of law. However, due to Mr. Pekor's discussions and efforts to resolve discovery issues, I indicated to Mr. Dickerson that we would be agreeable to receiving a late response to our Second Request for Admissions, so long as Traton was likewise agreeable to receiving our late response to Traton’s Request for Admissions. Alternatively, we mutually agreed not to oppose the other party moving ‘to withdraw its admissions (mr. Moses’ Response to Traton's First Request for Admissions, and Traton's Response to Plaintiff's Second Request for Admissions). At that time, I also noted to Mr. Dickerson that Mr, Moses’ third settlement offer was stil) outstanding, and that.we would postpone disparching any additional discovery items until we determined the status of Mr. Moses’ third offer. we requested a response to Mr. Moses’ third offer for settlement by last Monday (20 February 2006). During the middle of last week, after our requested deadline had passed, Mr. Dickerson called to indicate that Traton was still considering Mr. Moses''third offer. In view of Mr. Dickerson's phone call, we indicated that we would hold that offer open until the noon today (27 February 2006). while that deadline has now come and gone, we are nevertheless making yet another effort to determine whether or not Traton is agreeable to settling this matter. Should we receive no word from Traton by the close of business today (5:00 pm), we shall consider that Traton has again rejected Mr. Moses’ offer for settlement. In the event that Mr. Moses’ third offer stands rejected, we shall be requesting. Traton to serve its answer to Plaintiff's Second Request for Admissions by the Close of business (5:00 pm) on Friday, 03 March 2006. should that march 3rd deadline also lapse, then we shall be seeking a ruling from the Court that all of Plaintiff's Second Request for Admissions be deemed admitted in view of: (1) Traton's verbatim Gdentical) responses for EVERY request in Plaintiff's Second Request for Admissions, which renders most, if not all, of Traton's objections improper; and (2) Traton's withdrawal of its Motion for Protective Order and its failure to timely serve proper admissions. Please consider this email message, in addition to Mr. Pekor's previous conmunication, our good faith effort under Rule 6.4 to obtain proper answers for Plaintiff's Second Request for Admissions. Please also note that Occa 9-11-36 requires chat "when good faith requires that a party qualify hs answer or deny only apart of the matter of which an admission is requested, he shall specify so much o' it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder." we note that Traton has previously attempted to qualify or explain several of its admissions after those Admissions were filed without qualification (see, e.g., Traton's opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder of Additional parties). Should Traton feel that such Page