Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-05-06042/USCOURTS-ca10-05-06042-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

FREDERICK MALEK, et al. )

)

Plaintiffs-Appellees-CrossAppellants,)

)

)

v. ) 04-1455 & 04-1471

)

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER 

COMPANY, an Ohio corporation,

)

)

)

Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. )

)

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXEMPT REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT FROM THE 

APPELLEES’ SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX AND TO TRANSFER THE DISTRICT 

COURT TRANSCRIPT TO THIS COURT

Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants (the “Homeowners”) move the Court, 

under 10th Cir. R. 30.3(A)(2), to exempt the reporter’s transcript from their 

supplemental appendix, and ask this Court to instead order the district court clerk 

to transfer the reporter’s transcript directly to this Court. As grounds for this 

motion, the Homeowners state as follows:

1. This is an appeal from a four-week jury trial which resulted in a 

judgment in favor of the Homeowners for more than $8 million. The trial 

generated a transcript of 2,838 pages in length and involved the testimony of 

numerous witnesses and the admission of hundreds of exhibits.

Appellate Case: 05-6042 Document: 01019555 Date Filed: 02/07/2005 Page: 1 
-2-

2. Goodyear included only a limited portion of this substantial record in 

its appendix. Aside from the trial transcript, the Homeowners intend to include in 

their supplemental appendix numerous pleadings and admitted trial exhibits, which 

will result in an appendix that totals hundreds of pages of documents.

3. In their Opening-Answer Brief, the Homeowners intend to refer to 

substantial portions of the trial transcript. Moreover, the Homeowners’ crossappeal involves, in part, a sufficiency of the evidence argument. In order to 

present that argument, it will be necessary for the Homeowners to provide this 

Court with the entire trial transcript. See 10th Cir. R. 10.1(A)(1)(a).

4. If, in addition to the other items they intend to include in their 

supplemental appendix, the Homeowners must number, copy, and bind the entire 

trial transcript and include it in the appendix, the appendix would be enormous and 

difficult to use.

5. It would also be expensive. The cost to Bates-label 2,838 pages (@ 5 

cents/page) and to make six copies (two for the Court, one file-stamped copy, and 

one copy each for counsel, for a total of 17,028 pages @ 13 cents/page) would be 

$2,353.64. This amount would be in addition to the cost of the rest of the 

supplemental appendix.

6. Given that the transcript is already numbered consecutively from 1 to 

2,810 (the 28-page transcript of the jury verdict is separately numbered), all of this 

Appellate Case: 05-6042 Document: 01019555 Date Filed: 02/07/2005 Page: 2 
-3-

time, effort, and expense would be of no additional benefit to the Court. It would 

be far more efficient for the Court to simply order the district court clerk to transfer 

the reporter’s transcript to this Court for its use in this appeal.

7. The Homeowners’ Opening-Answer Brief and supplemental appendix 

are currently due on Friday, April 22, 2005, although the Homeowners are filing an 

unopposed motion for a one-week extension of time, until April 29, 2005. In any 

event, time is of the essence. The Homeowners therefore request that this motion 

receive expedited consideration.

8. In compliance with 10th Cir. R. 27.3(C), the undersigned counsel 

conferred with Goodyear’s counsel, L. Michael Brooks, about this motion, and 

Goodyear has no objection to this motion.

Wherefore, the Homeowners request that the Court (1) exempt from their 

supplemental appendix the reporter’s transcript, and (2) order the district court 

clerk to transfer the reporter’s transcript directly to this Court.

Appellate Case: 05-6042 Document: 01019555 Date Filed: 02/07/2005 Page: 3 
-4-

Dated April 13, 2005.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephen Masciocchi

David L. Black

Stephen G. Masciocchi

Elizabeth A. Phelan

Holland & Hart LLP

555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200

Denver, Colorado 80202

(303) 295-8000

William W. Maywhort

Holland & Hart LLP

8390 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 400

Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111

(303) 290-1600

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants 

Appellate Case: 05-6042 Document: 01019555 Date Filed: 02/07/2005 Page: 4 
-5-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on April 13, 2005 I served a copy of the foregoing document by 

U.S. mail, postage prepaid addressed to the following, and by digital submission as 

a scanned PDF to the email addresses listed below: 

David L. Lenyo, Esq.

Chad J. Schmit, Esq.

Garfield & Hecht, P.C.

601 East Hyman Avenue

Aspen, CO 81611

dlenyo@garfieldhecht.com

Roger P. Thomasch, Esq.

Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & 

Ingersoll, LLP

1225 17th Street, Suite 2300

Denver, CO 80202

thomasch@ballardspahr.com+

Mary A. Wells, Esq.

L. Michael Brooks, Jr., Esq.

WELLS, ANDERSON & RACE, LLC

1700 Broadway, Suite 1020

Denver, CO 80290

mbrooks@warllc.com

/s/ Sandra Howard

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH EMERGENCY GENERAL 

ORDER FILED OCTOBER 20, 2004

All required privacy redactions have been made to said document, and with the 

exception of those redactions, every document submitted in digital form is an exact 

copy of the written document filed with the clerk. Said document has been 

scanned for viruses with the most recent version of a commercial virus-scanning 

program, Symantec Antivirus Client, updated daily, and according to the program 

are free of viruses.

/s/ Sandra Howard

3365494_1.DOC

Appellate Case: 05-6042 Document: 01019555 Date Filed: 02/07/2005 Page: 5