Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

Case 2:O4—cv—OO384-ROS Document 280-9 Filed O2/24/2006 Page 1 of 3

Snell &W1hner °”‘““‘
· — LAS VEGAS
i LAWOFFICES ORANGECOUNTY
One Arizona Center PHOENIX
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
P SALT LAKE CITY
6023826070 F TUCSON
swlawcom
Dan W. Goldfine
602.3s2.6282
[email protected] February 10,
VIA FACSIMILE
Kurt M. Zitzer, Esq.
Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P.
Attomeys at Law
8800 N. Gainey Center Drive
Suite 261
_ Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Re: Meritage Homes Corp. v. Ricky Lee Hancock, et al, No. CV 04-03 84—PHX-
ROS, In the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Dear Kurt:
This letter is in response to your January 31, 2006 letter. It was nice to catch—up since our
days of co—coaching our daughter’s soccer team.
As we discussed, I do not agree with your conclusions in the letter or your suggestions as
to how my client should engage in litigation. The Court’s Order is clear, and the law firm of
Titus Brueckner & Berry, P.C. ("Titus") fails to comply at its own risk. I will add that your
position that Titus does not have to comply with a Court Order as to Greg Hancock, who you
concede is before the Court and who controls each entity you contend to be protecting, is without
basis. It is akin to a client moving the documents from his attomey of record to another attomey
and not complying to discovery requests because his attomey of record no longer has the
documents. Greg Hancock made your argument more than a year ago, and Judge Silver squarely
rejected it.
Putting the Order as to Greg Hancock aside and addressing the Order as to Titus, your
statement that Titus "has never been made subject to the jurisdiction of the Court" is simply
wrong. As an initial matter, both Titus and its lead name partner were served with subpoenas
and notices of deposition in the case. (Copies of these documents are attached to this letter as
Exhibit A.) It is of no matter to the enforceability of the Court’s Order that these subpoenas
covered a subset of the materials of that are the subject of the Order. In addition, Titus thrust
{ J) itself before the Court by objecting to a notice of deposition. (A copy of this objection is
‘ attached to this letter as Exhibit B.) Lastly and most importantly, Titus appeared before this
Case 2:O4—cv—OO384-ROS Document 28_O-9 _ Filed O2/24/2006 Page 2 of 3
Snell & Wilmer rs a member of LI:X MUNDI, The Leadrng Assocralion 0I Independent Law Firms.

Snell &Wilmer
—-— 1..1..12 —;—
I February 10, 2006
Page 2
attached to this letter as Exhibit B.) Lastly and most importantly, Titus appeared before this
Court as Greg Hancock’s attorney of record in this Court.
I strongly recommend that in this light you reconsider your position that the Court lacked
authority to issue the Order and fully comply with all of the terms of the Order. Please call me if
you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
` ll & W` er _
I T »
an , C • •j e
DWG:ser V
Enclosures
cc: Robert M. Frisbee
Ivan Mathew
Mark Harrison
Tim Burke
GOLDFl`D\PHX\l790788
I \
‘ Jl
Case 2:O4—cv—OO384—ROS Document 280-9 Filed O2/24/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 280-9

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 280-9

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 280-9

Filed 02/24/2006

Page 3 of 3