RE: Motion to Quash Carver Dep Re: (Cynowa v. CSSS) Notice of Deposition for the Continuation of Larry Carver's Evidence Deposition

Kevin,

If she is moved by your email I recommend we speak to her by telephone to coordinate an acceptable time for everyone. I liked the tone of your email.

From: Kevin Duff [mailto:kduff@rddlaw.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:01 PM
To: 'THERESA JOHNSON'
Cc: 'Peter V. Bustamante'; 'Haytham Faraj'; 'John Murray'; 'Kathleen M. Pritchard'
Subject: RE: Motion to Quash Carver Dep Re: (Cynowa v. CSSS) Notice of Deposition for the Continuation of Larry Carver's Evidence Deposition

Theresa,

We have provided a significant and reasonable amount of notice of the deposition. Mr. Carver?s evidence deposition was not previously concluded. There has been additional discovery with respect to him since he was initially deposed. It is unreasonable for you to take the position that because you took an evidence deposition of him approximately 18 months before the close of discovery and 21 months before trial that we are foreclosed, for example, from completing his evidence deposition or examining him on areas where we did not previously have an opportunity to ask him questions.

We are willing to attempt to reschedule this deposition to March 10 or 11, provided we are able to obtain confirmation that everyone is available that date. To this end, please let me know which of those dates you are available. If one of these dates is not mutually agreeable, or if we are not able to confirm that the witness is available one of those dates, then we will keep the current date and time as provided in our notice and subpoena.

Kevin

From: THERESA JOHNSON [mailto:theresavjohnson@prodigy.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 2:44 PM
To: Kevin Duff
Cc: Peter V. Bustamante; Haytham Faraj; John Murray; Kathleen M. Pritchard
Subject: Motion to Quash Carver Dep Re: (Cynowa v. CSSS) Notice of Deposition for the Continuation of Larry Carver's Evidence Deposition

Kevin,

We're moving to Quash your intended dep of Carver. We will not be in attendance unless there is a court order granting you the right to depose Carver a second time.

Sincerely,

Theresa V. Johnson
Attorney at Law
Law Office of Theresa V. Johnson
200 East Chicago Ave. Suite 200
Westmont, IL 60559
Tel.: (630) 321-1330
Fax: (630) 321-1185

From: Kevin Duff <kduff@rddlaw.net>
To: THERESA JOHNSON <theresavjohnson@prodigy.net>
Cc: Haytham Faraj <haytham@puckettfaraj.com>; John Murray <jmurray@rddlaw.net>; Kathleen M Pritchard <kpritchard@rddlaw.net>
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 4:11:07 PM
Subject: RE: (Cynowa v. CSSS) Notice of Deposition for the Continuation of Larry Carver's Evidence Deposition

Theresa,

I am writing to confirm the Carver deposition on February 17 at noon EST. Please advise.

Kevin

P.S. I don?t have Peter Bustamante?s email address. Could you please provide it?

From: John Murray [mailto:jmurray@rddlaw.net]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:05 PM
To: 'THERESA JOHNSON'
Cc: 'Kevin Duff'; 'Haytham Faraj'
Subject: (Cynowa v. CSSS) Notice of Deposition for the Continuation of Larry Carver's Evidence Deposition

Theresa:

Attached please find a Notice of Deposition for the Continuation of Larry Carver?s evidence deposition, as well as a copy of the subpoena and rider that was served upon Mr. Carver on January 30, 2011. Please see attached. Thanks.

Regards,

John E. Murray, Esq.

Associate Attorney

Rachlis Durham Duff & Adler, LLC

542 South Dearborn Street, Suite 900

Chicago, IL 60605

Office: (312) 733-3950

Direct: (312) 275-0338

Mobile: (810) 824-7197

Fax: (312) 733-3952

Email: jmurray@rddlaw.net

Firm website: www.rddlaw.net

RACHLIS DURHAM DUFF & ADLER, LLC E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

This transmission may be: (1) subject to the Attorney-Client Privilege, (2) an attorney work product, or (3) strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print, copy or disseminate this information. If you have received this in error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law.