Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1
-
1

l
I
¤
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB D0cument155-6 Filed O2/27/2006 Page10f3 `

1 1 ~
1 I
A 1 STEVEN W. DAVIS (Pro Hac Vice, Aug. 26, 2003) -
1 DAVID W. SHAPIRO, AZ BAR N0. 015295 .
1 2 ANN M. GALVANI (Pro Hac Vice, Sept. 29, 2003) -
1 I ORGE SCHMIDT (Pro Hac Vice, March 17, 2005)
1 3 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
1 100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 2800 .
4 Miami, Florida 3313 l _
Telephone (305) 539-8400 ` -
1 5 Facsimile (305) 539-1307
. I Attorneys or Plaintiffs Marvin and Glori Sapiro
1 6
1 IN THE UNITE STATES DIST CT COURT
1 - 7 FOR THE ISTRICT OF ZONA
8 - PI-I ENIX DIV ISIO
1 I .
1 9 MARVIN SAPIRO and { ASE NO. CIV 03 1555 PHX SRE
. · 1 10 GLORIA SAPIRO, his wife, ‘ )
1 I I Plaintiffs, I 3
E 12 ,1, 1 on Lannrron or 1v1ArrHnW 12.
1 2 13 ’ FRE16”S1§¥§§€—%TD%i§h3mI'm‘$?S”
1 _ SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, L.L. ,, 0 BIQR Hm NT
1 14 SUNSTONE HOTEL INVESTORS, L.P. 5 MOTI N FOR SUM Y GMEE
1
1 1 5 Defendants. . i
1 16 ‘ 1
1 17 6 s
- is
1 I, Matthew R. Freije, hereby dec] Ie:
1 - 19
1 ; - 1. I am over eighteen years of age an have personal owleclge of the facts set forth herein.
1 1 20
I
1 21 2. I make this declaration in support f Plaintiffs Mar in and Gloria Sapiro’s Opposition to
1 1 22 . 1
1 Sunstone’s motion for summary j dgrnent. A
1 23 I
1 ‘ .
I 24 3. Concerning the dCl£C1'1‘l‘1ll‘1E1'[l011 of 1 e level of bacter al contamination at the San Marcos .
25 during th time of Mr. Sapiro’s st in February, 2 03, it would be contrary to standard
1 1 “ 26 . 1
E 27 industry practices, andscientitical y unsound, to a ernpt a regression analysis working
1 1
1 28 I backwards from the test results ob ained later in th year.
1 1 _
1 Declare `on of Matthew. reije
Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 155-6 Filed O2/27/2006 Page 2 of 3

I .
J a
I I
I 1 4. The primary reason such ananalysis is not done is at the results would be unreliable. A
I
I I 2 domestic water system, such as the one at the San arcos, is an open and dynamic
I s
I I system, with numerous variables and factors (e.g. ater being flushed from the system;
I 4 ‘
5 new water being introduced into the system) affect g the numbers of Legionella bacteria
I
I I 6 in the system at a given time.
8 5. Similarly, Defendants’ suggestion that the high lcv ls of bacterial contamination found i.n
9 tests conducted several months after Mr. Sapiro’s tay could be the result of a "spike” is
· .
I 10 highly improbable. Although Legionella bacterial vels will vary hom time to time,
I I 1 1 studies `indicate that a Legionella problem is not l` ely to come and go without
I .
' 12 . - ·
1 I intervention. A system that is contaminated with e bacteria is very unlikely to correct
2 . l 3
I I 14 itself-»even after an initial disinfection procedure, continuous disinfection will likely be
I 15 needed to provide safe water. Conversely, Legion lla contamination discovered in a
I 16 domestic water system did not likely develop in re ent days, weeks, or months, unless an
I 17 unusual event occurred to cause it. -
I I 18
I 19 I . .
I 20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws o the United States of America that the
I 2I foregoing is true and correct.
I
I 22
I 23 Executedon *gl¤·?·'I'.?.¤¢¤G in aI Ipe¤IL Calf -. ‘ I
I
I I 24
I 25 . I
T 26
I 27 Matthew R. Freije .
I Z
I I .
I I 28 .
I I I
I I 2
I I
I Declaration of Matthew reije
I Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB Document 155-6 Filed O2/27/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB

Document 155-6

Filed 02/27/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB

Document 155-6

Filed 02/27/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-01555-SRB

Document 155-6

Filed 02/27/2006

Page 3 of 3