Free Motion for Attorney Fees - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1E.6HT.ER03 QCEGUNT RCEIUITR PRINTED: Tue 27 3am EGCE E&:3G:i2 PQEE: 219
BRUEHENE UBERE HGDDS & HELEBR, P.C. RP! EQTE: GE/§1fG2 YHRU G1f17§GE
REPURE SEQUEECE: B? CLIEHT ED 1GG&G.53G BELLED 3 UHBELLED FEES R EB5?5
CLIENT: 1GCOC.53Q CHBBB INSURRHEE ERGUP
MQTTER: 530 R-ZELL HETQLS EDU YRUE CEHYER
ELXENEKNQTYEH HRYYER EQPTIQN RRTKEE ERPE ESNTIMBENT
QEECREPEIGH DQEE HRSJUHIXS RQTE BILL QMQERE ?RRN NG SEQTES
FREE F. EEESEEIN ~ HEEEREKGN FEES O3iOif05 G.@0— 2382651 B
($850.63 REIHBURSEE BY CHUEB3
QRBZERQTGRSXHEDIQEURS @.00 3E0.€3~ R12
124 ETHER (SPH, CQR, CMR?
E~E RTTGRNEY SERVICE - SERVICE QF PRGEESS 3é!18f33 iG0.6G 1763553 3
RE E/R FBR GLENDRLE RELGING EGMERHY
QCEURINT — HRLIHE SERRCE SERUECE 54f3G!O4 $.75 EGGEFBG B
RCCURZNT · QNLIME SERRCH EERVICE 05731704 2%.GQ 2G@3793 5 wv
PEYHER BONES HRHQEEMEET SERUECES — BGDBHEHT G3i14fG4 1.65 2373533 3 W Q j7“
ummm /7, *7
fh? QTTBRHER SERVICEE - SERVEEE BF PRBEESS EEJQEIGE 123.6G 2225295 P
QYTMEPTS RE J. ERHSUQY
PQTRIEIQ LVUHS, EGER? REPBRTER — 13713/05 432.00 2223535 P
?RQN5ERIPTS GE 11/GIEGE QND 11702565 TRIQL
ETHER {BPH, CQR, CMR? 634.06
YQTRL 7.838.21 -R
I TUTRL METYER 16E»,?11.'£i 75.}%-
{0TQL FEES 1385.éG 158,373.3%
YGTQL RDURNCED CESES 7,838.22
TB? CLIEHY ID 1G000.53G 156,711.21 ?5.7G- ?,5¢3.E3~
Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC Document 223-54 Filed O1/17/2006 Page 1 of 3

1E.6HT.ERG3 QBCGUNT RETIVITV PRINTED: Tue 17 San EGGE 10:3S:12 ?§§E: 119
ERGEEIHB GBERG HCGDS 3 HILSGN, P.Cu RPT BQTE: GBIGLIGQ THRU 02ii?#0E
REPORT SEQUENCE: BY CLIENT ID l00OG.530 BILLED é UHBILLEE FEES é EGSTE
** REPQRT TGTQLS **
ELTEHTIMRTTER MQTTER CRPTTCN HQTTER TYPE C3HTT§EENT
DESCRIPTTBN EQTE HRSfUNETE RQTE BILL QMGUN? TRQH NG STQTUB
TBTEL FEES THIS REPGRT 2385.40 15B,8?3.0G
TETEL GUSTS THES REPORT 7,338.21
TGTRL THIS REPERT 155,?1E.2i ?5.?G- ?,5G3.63~
Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC Document 223-54 Filed O1/17/2006 Page 2 of 3

Robert Sullivan
From: Peter Greenfeld [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 4:08 PM
To: Robert Sullivan; [email protected]
Subject: True Center adv. Sonoran
Confidential And Privileged Settlement Communication
Greg and Bobbie,
So that there is no misunderstanding, the following is NOT True Center’s
entire monetary demand, and is only the monetary demand in the context of
the insurers' estimated cost of defense going forward for the insurers:
$60,000.00 per insurer for a total of $120,000.00. The insurer and the
defendants should not take this demand out of context as, again, it is not
all of True Center’s monetary or other demands. Put differently, it would
take meeting this demand and other demands to settle the case.
A few caveats:
This is not the total monetary demand by True Center. We feel that it would
be more productive to raise any such demand at the Mediation.
True Center is assuming that the insurers’ coverage is only for cost of
defense, and the insurers have no exposure for attorneys' fees. Put
differently, the demand assumes that the insurers’ sole exposure (other than
non-attorneys' fees damages) is the cost of defending the action. The
settlement agreement would have to warranty and represent same. If the
insurers’ coverage includes liability for any judgment obtained by True
Center for its attorneys' fees for contract and/or patent, the insurers may
face exposure of cost of defense plus True Center’s costs and fees of
$250,000.00 or more.
We sense that the adjusters have valued cost of defense at a lower figure.
If so, we believe the adjusters have not accurately predicted the cost of
defending an action raising trademark, trade secrets and particularly patent
claims. It appears that the fees involved in defending such complex claims
from the summary judgment completion through trial, plus possible appeals,
may well exceed $150,000.00. Frankly, we believe that such claims cannot be
readily defended “on the cheap,” and attempting to do so merely results in -
an insufficient defense. It may be helpful to obtain the Mediator’s sense
of this issue.
Peter Greenfeld
Nelson & Roediger
1 Ex:-uslr ss
Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC Document 223-54 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC

Document 223-54

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC

Document 223-54

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-01109-DGC

Document 223-54

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 3 of 3