There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 115
Filed 05/11/2006
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.
03-cv-2461-MSK-MEH
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY,
Plaintiff, v.
FELDMEIER EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Defendant.
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DOCUMENT 109)
Defendant Feldmeier Equipment, Inc. (“Feldmeier”) through counsel, submits the following Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel.
Defendant has not received the key documents it has been seeking. It has not received any of the requests for bid information from Leprino to tank manufacturers. We know that other manufacturers bid on this project and we suspect that the bid specifications did not include any specifications whatsoever regarding tank overflow rates. Additionally, we have not received any responses from manufacturers regarding the Leprino request for bid. We need this information as we intend to prove that a specific overflow rate was never specified and to impeach Leprino’s witnesses.
We have received documents including an “Approval for Expenditure” and what Plaintiff claims to be a “project file”, and therefore, the second category of documents need not be addressed.
Page 2
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 115
Filed 05/11/2006
Page 2 of 3
With regard to the third category of documents regarding plans for modification, Plaintiff’s theory regarding this case is entirely speculative and remote. One of Plaintiff’s field operators testified that some day in the distant future, Leprino may remodel its dairy plant at Waverly and, if it does so, it may, someday, put a pump on the Feldmeier tank that is muc h bigger than the pump that is currently present. During the course of the deposition Feldmeier asked the project engineer if he had any documents showing any plans for modification of the Waverly facility, and he testified that he thought so. It is these documents that we are seeking. If it is Leprino’s position that no such documents exist, Defendant would like that clarification on the record.
Respectfully submitted this 11th day of May, 2006.
FOWLER, SCHIMBERG & FLANAGAN, P.C.
s/ Catherine A. Tallerico Catherine A. Tallerico 1640 Grant Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: 303.298.8603 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
Page 3
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 115
Filed 05/11/2006
Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 11th day of May, 2006, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DOCUMENT 109) to be filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:
Michael G. Bohn, Esq.
mbohn@campbellbohn.com Mr. Jake Feldmeier jake@feldmeier.com
s/ Michelle Rocke
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 115
Filed 05/11/2006
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.
03-cv-2461-MSK-MEH
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
FELDMEIER EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Defendant.
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (DOCUMENT 109)
Defendant Feldmeier Equipment, Inc. (“Feldmeier”) through counsel, submits the
following Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel.
Defendant has not received the key documents it has been seeking. It has not received
any of the requests for bid information from Leprino to tank manufacturers. We know that other
manufacturers bid on this project and we suspect that the bid specifications did not include any
specifications whatsoever regarding tank overflow rates. Additionally, we have not received any
responses from manufacturers regarding the Leprino request for bid. We need this information
as we intend to prove that a specific overflow rate was never specified and to impeach Leprino’s
witnesses.
We have received documents including an “Approval for Expenditure” and what Plaintiff
claims to be a “project file”, and therefore, the second category of documents need not be
addressed.
PDF Page 3
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 115
Filed 05/11/2006
Page 2 of 3
With regard to the third category of documents regarding plans for modification,
Plaintiff’s theory regarding this case is entirely speculative and remote. One of Plaintiff’s field
operators testified that some day in the distant future, Leprino may remodel its dairy plant at
Waverly and, if it does so, it may, someday, put a pump on the Feldmeier tank that is muc h
bigger than the pump that is currently present. During the course of the deposition Feldmeier
asked the project engineer if he had any documents showing any plans for modification of the
Waverly facility, and he testified that he thought so. It is these documents that we are seeking.
If it is Leprino’s position that no such documents exist, Defendant would like that clarification
on the record.
Respectfully submitted this 11th day of May, 2006.
FOWLER, SCHIMBERG & FLANAGAN, P.C.
s/ Catherine A. Tallerico
Catherine A. Tallerico
1640 Grant Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Telephone: 303.298.8603
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
2
PDF Page 4
Case 1:03-cv-02461-MSK-MEH
Document 115
Filed 05/11/2006
Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 11th day of May, 2006, I caused a true and correct copy of the
foregoing REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY (DOCUMENT 109) to be filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF
system, which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:
Michael G. Bohn, Esq.
mbohn@campbellbohn.com
Mr. Jake Feldmeier
jake@feldmeier.com
s/ Michelle Rocke
3
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
Back to 
