Free Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00911-GIVIS Document 115-3 Filed O2/O3/2006 Page 1 0f 2

Case 1 :04-cv-00911-GIVIS Document 115-3 Filed O2/O3/2006 Page 2 ef 2
CASAR1NO,C1<1R1STMAN & SHALK, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW .
cONEcr|vsuxLe1Ne y .
s00 NORTH t STEPHEN P. cnsamse
001-W M- SHALK SUITE 200 REPLY re eus MAnLtNe ADDRESS:
BETH H.0HRisTMAN pe BOX 4275 F._O_BOX1m
,E€m§$HMM5Qg§gM vv¤LM|NeteN, DELAWARE 10000 W'L'“‘NGT0N» 05 19899
THOMAS P LEEE
MATTHEW E. OTBYRNE
CHANETA e. sROet JOHN A. MAcceNl, JR. FAX; (302) 594-4509
August 4, 2005
E. Alred Smith, Esq.
1333 Race Street, Secend Fleer
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Re: Kapucz v. DRBA and Craig Swctt
Dear Al:
As we discussed, 1 will re—netice the dcpesitien ef Cathy Kepacz which was initially
scheduled fer rluly 29, 2005.
Yen mentiened that yeu weuld prefer that 1 net take her depesitien because ef yeur belief
that she has seme type ef emetienal issue which weuld hinder her ability te previde useful testimeny.
Yeu weuld net disclese that cenditien er previde any further infermatien.
_ 1 neted that Ms. Kepacz is named as a party te the cemplaint and. mere impertantly, in yeur
initial disclesure statement she is identified as a "persen[s] with Knewledge". Under the
circumstances 1 de net see hew 1 ceuld preperly defend my client witheut depesing Ms. Kepacz te
find Out what she knews.
Yeu mentiened that if we ge ferward with the depesitien, yeu may name me persenally in
a law suit. 1 certainly hepe that yeu weuld net de anything like that.
As discussed, if yeu ceuld at least give me seme better indicatien ef why yeu believe that Ms.
Kepacz ceuld net testify and if yeu ceuld previde seme sert ef medical decumentatien, 1 weuld then
be in a better pesitien te assess the situatien.
Based en the infenn atien that 1 have right new, 1 feel that in Order te defend my client 1 must
preceed with the depesitien. Please de net sue me.
Very truly yeurs, T

4}; .5. ft/L”"`
DONALD M. RA. SOM
DMR/de
cc: Mr. Craig Swett