Lipari Second Motion to Compel Production of Discovery Request ...

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ,JACKSON COUNTYAT INDEPENDENCESAMUEL K. LIP ART(Statutory Trustee of DissolvedMedical Supply Chain, Ine.)v.Plaintiff,GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY t et at,Defendants.)))))))))))C9:11.C No. 0616~CV07421DEFENDANTS~ RESPONSES TOPLAINTIFF~S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OFATTORNEY CLIENT PRTYILEGE DOCUMENTSDefendantsGeneral Electric Company ("GE~'), General Electric Capital Business AssetsFunding Corporation C'GE Capital"), and GE Transportation Systems Global Signaling. LLC("GE Transportation") (collectively the ~'GE defendants") responds to plainti rf's Request forProduction of Attorney Client Privilege Documents to GE defendants as follows:OB.TECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS1. GE defendants object to plaintiffs Definitions and Instructions to the extent thatthe application of the Definitions and Instructions would render the document request confusingand m.eaningleM. In responding to the document request, OE defendants will apply the common.ordinary, everyday meaning to the words and terms.2. GE defendants further object to plainti ffs Definitions and Instructions section inthat compliance with the Definitions and Instructions for the term "identify" is overly broad andunduly burdensome, Additionally, strict adherence to plaintiff':'> definition of "identify" wouldrender the requests unmanageableand meaningless.M4_t l.V"tll 1

3. GE defendants object to plaintiffs usc of the words "relating to" which makes therequest vague and ambiguous and fails to describe with reasonable particularity the documentrequested. The plaintiff's attempt to itemize the phrase "relating to" is contrary to the meaningor definition of "relating to" and therefore will not be used by GE defendants. As stated above.the GE defendants will ascribe to the request its plain and ordinary meaning.In answering therequest using the tcnn "relating to" the GE defendants wilI treat the words "relating to" as if theywere the word "concerning."4. GE defendants object to Definition 1 because it unnecessarily calls for attorneyclient communicationsand work product.5. GE defendants object to Definition 2 because it refers to the Federal Rules ofEvidence and the parties are in state court.6. GE defendants ohject to Instruction 1 on the grounds that it is overbroad andseeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence.;V0CUMENTREQUESTSI. Documents related to tI1C defendants' representation by the law firm Arnold &Porter, 555 12th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 including Arnold & Porter'scorrespondence, attachments! agreements, emails and phone cummunicatlons and logs for allminutes of meetings with officers, employees, representatives,and agents for GE Corporate, GECapital, GE Transportation and GE Medical, GHX and any related entities, representatives oragents concerning Medical Supply Chain, Inc., Samuel Lipari, Bret Landrith, Dermis Hawver orany witness identified by the plaintiff on the plaintiff's Rule 26 disclosure.2

RESPONSE:The GE defendants object to Request 1 on the grounds that it seeks attorney clientcommunications and work product materials. The GE defendants further object to Request 1 onthe grounds that it seeks documents from an entity that is not a party to this litigation.2. Documents related 10 the defendants' representation by the law finn Arnold &Porter including Arnold & Porter's board meeting minutes, internal lnvcstigations,correspondence, attachments, agreements, cmails and phone communications and logs for allminutes 0 f meetings of officers, attorneys, employees, representatives.and agents for Arnold &Porter concerning the representation of GE~ GE Capital, GE Transportation, GE Medical, GHXand any related entities, representatives or agents in matters concerning Medical Supply Chain,Inc., Samuel Lipari, Bret Landrith and Dennis Hawver.RESPONSE:The GE defendants object to Request 2 on the grounds that it seeks attorney clientcommunications and work product materials. The GE defendants further object to Request 2 onthe grounds that it seeks documents from an entity that is not a party to this litigation.3. Documents related to the defendants' representation by the law finn Busch &Eppenberger, LLC 1700 One Kansas City Place 1200 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64l05

RESPONSE:The GE defendants object to Request J on the grounds that it seeks attorney clientcommunications and work jjf(lciuct materials. The OR defendants further object to Request .3 onthe grounds that it seeks documentsfrom an entity that is not a party to this litigation.4, Documents related to the defendants' representation by the law finn Husch &Eppenbcrger, LLC including Husch & Eppenberger, LLC's board meeting minutes, internalinvestigations, correspondence, attachments. agreements, emails and phone communications andlogs for all minutes of meetings of officers, attorneys, employees, representatives,and agents forHusch & Eppcnbcrger, LLC concerning the representation of GE, GE Capital, OETransportation, GE Medical, GHX and any related entities) representatives or agents in mattersconcerning Medical Supply Chain: Inc., Samuel Lipari, Brct Landrith and Dennis Hawver.RESPONSE:The GE defendants object to Request 4 on the grounds that it seeks attorney clientcommunications and work product materials The GE defendants further object to Request 4 onthe grounds that it seeks documentsfrom an entity that is not 9.. party to this litigation.S. Documents related to the defendants' representation by the law finn ArnoId &Porter and Husch & Eppenberger, LLC including correspondence, attachments, agreements,cmails and phone communications and logs for all minutes of meetings of officers, attorneys,employees, representatives, and agent:'> exchanged between Arnold & Porter and Rusch &Eppenberger, LLC concerning the representation of OE~ GE Capital, GE Transportation, GEMedical, GI-IX and any related entities, representativesor agents in matters concerning MedicalSupplyChain, Inc., Samuel Lipari, Brct Landrith and Dennis Hawver.RESPONSE:The GE defendants object to Request 5 on the grounds that it seeks attorney clientcommunications flt1dwork product materials, The GE defendants further object to Request 5 onthe grounds that it seeks documentsfrom an entity that is not a. party to this litigation,4

6. Documents related to the defendants' coordination of representation by the lawfirm Arnold & Porter and Husch & Eppenberger, LLC with attorneys and corporatecounselrepresenting US Bank NA, US Bancorp, The Piper Jaffray Companies including correspondence,attachments, agreements, ernails and phone communications and logs for all minutes of meetingsof officers, attorneys, employees, representatives, and agents exchanged between the defendantsand their counsel with Shugart Thomson & Kilroy and their client's corporate counsel in mattersconcerning Medical Supply Chain, Inc., Samuel Lipari, Bret Landrith and Dennis Hawver,RESPONSE:The GE defendants object to Request 6 on the grounds that it seeks attorney clientcommunications and work product materials. The GE defendants further object to Request 6 allthe grounds that it seeks documents from an entity that is not a party to this litigation.7. Documents related to the defendants" coordination of representation by the lawfirm Arnold & Porter and Rusch & Eppenberger, LLC communications with the law firmsSeyfarth Shaw, Jenner & Block, Miller Shakman & Beem, Bryan Cave, Novak & Macey, LordBissel & Brook) Cummins & Cronin, and Jenkins & Gilchrist including correspondence,attachments, agreements, entails and phone communications and logs for all minutes of meetingsof officers, attorneys, employees, representatives, and agents exchanged between the defendantscounsel and the above named law firms in matters concerning McCook Metals, MichiganAvenue Partners, Michael Lynch, Medical Supply Chain, Inc., Samuel Lipari, Bret Landrith andDennis Hawver.RESPONSE;The GE defendants object to Request 7 on the grounds that it seeks attorney clientcommunications and work product materials. The GE defendants further object to Request 7 onthe grounds that it seeks documents from an entity that is not a party to this litigation.09~JIJriJIl 5

H~ ,1PEN~ER{'i? LLC?4~R~y ~K. Power # 7044RLeonard L. Wagner #397831200 Main Street, Suite 2300Kansas City, MO 64105Telephone: (816) 421-4800Facsimile: (816) 421-0596ATTORNEYS FOR GENERAL ELECTRICCOMPANY, GENERAL ELECTRlC CAPITALBUSINESS ASSET FUNDING CORPORA nONAND GE TRA.NSPORTATTON SYSTEMSGLOBAL SIGNA LJNG, LLCCERTIFICATEOF SERVICEThe undersigned hcrcb_.rJtrfi(ies that a true and accurate copy of the foregoinginstrument was forwarded thi~y of February, 2007. by first class mail, postage prepaid to;Samuel K. Lipari297 NE BayviewLee's Summit, MO 640646