[brief] [...] Appears To “Spoon Feed” Testimony To [...], To His Detriment And [...]’s Benefit, Regarding An Alleged “Miscommunication”  The attorneys who have been jointly representing the [...] Defendants and [...], both [...] and their current counsel on appeal, rely heavily on their claim that there was a mere “miscommunication” between [...] supervisor [...] and Defendant [...] in order to suggest that their joint representation poses no conflict of interest.  See Db1, 3-5, 14-15, 17, 23.  However, as set forth above, [...] was adamant that [...] never specified to use the “grassy” cut-through, Da313, ¶ 3, and [...] was equally adamant that he repeatedly provided specific instructions to use the grass-covered, cone-marked cut-through.  Da226, (89:3-25); Da229, (101:17-24).  Disturbingly, [...] appeared to attempt to use its joint representation to influence [...]’s deposition testimony by telling him that a “miscommunication” had occurred when, in fact, [...]’ own version was that [...] never gave him detailed instructions and just told him to use “the turnaround”.  [...] admitted that his only source for saying that a “miscommunication” had occurred was that his [...] attorney, who also represented the [...] Defendants, told him so:  Q: Why did you use the emergency vehicle turnaround at 87.5?  A: Because I was instructed to use the turnaround by the foreman on job.  It was a miscommunication, I thought that that was the one I was supposed you use when there was one further back over the grass that he was talking about?  Q: Who was this person that instructed you.  A: [...] [[...]].  [Da046 (27:10-18) (emphasis added). ]  ***  Q: After the crash, did you ever confront Mr. Mauro and say you told me to use that one, did you ever say that?  A: No.  I didn’t.  Q: Well, how do you know it was a miscommunication then?  A: Because my lawyer [...]: Don’t Q: No, don’t tell me about your lawyer.  A: Okay.  Repeat that, I’m sorry.  Q:  How do you know it was a miscommunication, when you say it was a miscommunication between you and [...] who works for [...]?  A: Because when all of the information was gathered after the crash then I came to that conclusion from the information.  [Da046 (29:5-20) (emphasis added). ]  ***  Q: [D]id you find out who the person was who gave you the instruction [to take “the turnaround”]?  A: After the fact, yes.  Q: And who was that person?  A: [...].  [….]  Q: Who told you other than your attorney that it was Mr. Mauro?  A: My attorney told me.  [Da050 (44:4-8, 21-23) (emphasis added). ]  It appears from the above testimony that Defendant [...] may have been spoon-fed a factual scenario by his counsel (who also represented his employers the [...] Defendants) that had no basis in his own personal knowledge and that undercut his own testimony that (1) his [...] supervisor failed to give him specific instructions about which turnaround to use and (2) that [...] gave him no basis to believe that he was not authorized to use the paved police turnaround.  Id.  [...] apparently may have used its conflicted joint representation to get [...] to testify against his own interest and to contradict his own version of events for the benefit of the [...] Defendants, as strengthening [...]’s “miscommunication” theory would detract from the direct negligence claims against [...] for failing to properly train and supervise [...].  Id.  E.  Plaintiff Repeatedly Advises AMD Of The Subject Conflict