IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., P.C., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SKILSTAF, INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

3:06-cv-00711-MHT

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., P.C., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SKILSTAF, INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

3:06-cv-00728-MHT

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 

FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES ONLY

Defendant Skilstaf, Inc. (“Skilstaf” or “Defendant”) hereby submits a 

motion to consolidate the above-styled cases for discovery purposes only. 

Consolidation for discovery purposes will preserve the parties’ time, effort, 

and cost. However, because the above-styled cases involve dissimilar 

factual and legal issues, Defendant hereby moves the Court not to 

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 10
2

consolidate the above-styled cases for trial purposes. In support of this 

Motion, Defendant offers the following grounds: 

1. Skilstaf is an employee leasing company that provides its 

clients with employee benefits and human resources services including, but 

not limited to, health care benefits. 

2. As an employee leasing company, it enters into co-employment 

agreements with its clients, under which the client leases its employees to 

Skilstaf and Skilstaf simultaneously assigns the employees back to the client. 

Although Skilstaf’s clients retain direct control and supervision of their 

employees, Skilstaf becomes the co-employer of its clients’ employees for 

specified purposes such as payroll, benefits, and workers’ compensation. 

3. Because Newspaper Processing, Inc. is one of Skilstaf’s clients, 

Skilstaf provides group health coverage under the Skilstaf Group Health 

Plan (the “Plan”) to Newspaper Processing, Inc. employees and their 

spouses. 

4. Dennis Berry is an employee of Newspaper Processing, Inc., 

and, during the time relevant to the Complaint, was a participant in the Plan. 

Accordingly, during the time relevant to the Complaint, Skilstaf provided 

group health coverage under the Plan to Dennis Berry and his wife, Dianna 

Berry. 

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 2 of 10
3

5. The Plan, which is an employee welfare benefits plan, is 

governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 

U.S.C § 1001 et seq. (“ERISA”). See Ex. A at 2, attached hereto (providing 

a copy of the Summary Plan Description (“SPD”) that describes the group 

health benefits provided under the Plan). Skilstaf is the sponsor of the Plan; 

Risk Reduction, Inc. (“RRI”) is the Plan Administrator. See id. at 59. 

6. To claim policy benefits under the Plan, a claimant must submit 

a claim to RRI within 180 days of the date of service. See Ex. A at 57. 

Further, the SPD provides that, to the extent RRI needs more information to 

process a claimant’s claim, the claimant must provide such information 

within 45 days of RRI’s request. Id. The SPD makes clear that a claimant’s 

“[f]ailure to respond and provide the information [requested by RRI] may 

result in denial of the claim.” Id. In the event RRI denies the claim, the 

claimant may make a written request for a review of RRI’s denial decision. 

Id. As in the initial denial decision context, the SPD makes clear that RRI 

may request a claimant “to furnish, in connection with the review of the 

[initial] denial, information that the plan administrator reasonably believes is 

important to the review.” Id. 

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 3 of 10
4

7. Beginning on or about August 6, 2004, Dennis Berry sought 

radio frequency treatment from Plaintiff.1

 See Ex. B at ¶ 5, attached hereto. 

In connection with its alleged treatment of Dennis Berry, Plaintiff submitted 

medical bills to RRI totaling $369,390.00. See id. at ¶ 6. 

8. Beginning on or about January 14, 2005, Dianna Berry sought 

radio frequency treatment from Plaintiff. See Ex. C at ¶ 5, attached hereto. 

In connection with its alleged treatment of Dianna Berry, Plaintiff submitted 

medical bills to RRI totaling $189,900.00. See id. at ¶ 6. 

9. On April 19, 2005, RRI notified Plaintiff that its Dennis Berryrelated claims were not covered under the terms of the Plan because “the 

bills in question [were] the result of an alleged work-related injury or [were] 

otherwise subject to workers’ compensation law.” See Ex. E, attached 

hereto. RRI also requested that Plaintiff submit any information in its 

possession that conflicted with RRI’s understanding “that the bills in 

question [were] the result of an alleged work-related injury . . . .” See id. 

Despite RRI’s request, Plaintiff never submitted any conflicting 

documentation. Later, RRI notified Plaintiff that the Plan had “its own 

appeals process, which [was] explained in Section 14 of the plan document 

 

1

 According to one website, Plaintiff is in the business of treating its patients’ chronic 

pain through a non-invasive radio frequency procedure whereby Plaintiff’s employees 

place pinpointed heat directly into their patients’ injured muscles. See Ex. D, attached 

hereto.

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 4 of 10
5

already provided to you.” Ex. F, attached hereto. Despite the fact that RRI 

notified Plaintiff that the Plan had its own appeals process, Plaintiff never 

appealed RRI’s initial decision to deny payment with respect to Plaintiff’s 

Dennis Berry-related claims. Instead, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on or 

about October 6, 2005. 

10. On July 14, 2005, RRI notified Plaintiff that its Dianna Berryrelated claims were not covered under the terms of the Plan because: (1) 

Plaintiff’s services were chiropractic in nature and, under the Plan’s express 

terms, claims for chiropractic services were limited to $1,000.00 per year; 

and (2) there had been no “documented physical improvement” from the 

radio frequency treatments rendered to Dianna Berry. See Ex. G, attached 

hereto. Although Plaintiff later submitted additional documentation to 

support its Dianna Berry-based claims, the documentation submitted 

“contain[ed] insufficient evidence that Ms. Berry ha[d] experienced 

documented physical improvement from [Plaintiff’s] treatments.” See Ex. 

H, attached hereto. On September 6, 2005, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a 

letter purporting to “appeal” RRI’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s Dianna 

Berry-related claims. See Ex. I, attached hereto. On September 26, 2005, 

RRI affirmed its initial denial decision. See Ex. H. 

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 5 of 10
6

11. Eleventh Circuit jurisprudence is clear that “plaintiffs in ERISA 

actions must exhaust available administrative remedies before suing in 

federal court.” Counts v. Am. Gen. Life and Accident Ins. Co., 111 F.3d 105, 

107 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Harrison v. United Mine Workers of Am. 1974 

Benefit Plan & Trust, 941 F. 2d 1190, 1193 (11th Cir. 1991). 

12. By submitting its September 6, 2005, written “appeal,” Plaintiff 

may have exhausted the Plan’s administrative remedies with respect to its 

Dianna Berry-related claims. To the contrary, Plaintiff has not yet appealed 

RRI’s decision to deny payment of its Dennis Berry-related claims. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not exhausted the Plan’s administrative remedies 

with respect to its Dennis Berry-related claims. 

13. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides, in pertinent 

part, that: 

When actions involving a common question of law or fact are 

pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of 

any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the 

actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning 

proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or 

delay. 

FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a) (2006). 

14. To determine whether two cases should be consolidated, a 

district court must determine: 

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 6 of 10
7

[W]hether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion 

[are] overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of 

common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, 

witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple 

lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple suits 

as against a single one, and the relative expense to all concerned 

of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives. 

Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 

1985). 

15. The above-styled cases should be not be consolidated for trial 

purposes because they do not involve the same “question[s] of law or fact.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). First, the bases for RRI’s denial of Plaintiff’s Dennis 

Berry-related claims are different than the bases for RRI’s denial of 

Plaintiff’s Dianna Berry-related claims. See supra at ¶¶ 9 & 10. Second, 

and although Plaintiff may have exhausted the Plan’s administrative 

remedies with respect to its Dianna Berry-related claims, it has failed to do 

so with respect to its Dennis Berry-related claims. See supra at ¶¶ 9-12. 

16. Because the above-styled cases involve different factual and 

legal issues, there is little risk that the Court will reach inconsistent results 

should the cases be tried separately. Accordingly, the “risk[] of prejudice 

and possible confusion” that will result from consolidating the above-styled 

cases is not “overborne by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common 

factual and legal issues . . . .” Hendrix, 776 F.2d at 1495. 

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 7 of 10
8

17. On the other hand, and because Dianna Berry is a participant in 

the Plan by virtue of her husband’s employment with one of Skilstaf’s 

clients, Skilstaf has stored the Administrative Records with respect to 

Dennis and Dianna Berry together. 

18. In an ERISA-based dispute of the type at issue in the abovestyled cases, “[t]he function of the court is to determine whether there was a 

reasonable basis for [RRI’s denial] decision, based upon the facts as known 

to [RRI] at the time the decision was made.” Jett v. Blue Cross & Blue 

Shield of Ala., 890 F.2d 1137, 1139 (11th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, a court 

is to limit its scope of review to the administrative record that was before 

RRI at the time it denied Plaintiff’s claims. See Paramore v. Delta Airlines, 

Inc., 129 F.3d 1446, 1451 (11th Cir. 1997). 

19. Because Skilstaf has stored the Administrative Record for 

Dianna and Dennis Berry together, and because Eleventh Circuit law is wellsettled that the Court’s scope of review in the above-styled cases is limited 

to the administrative record that was before RRI at the time it denied 

Plaintiff’s claims, Skilstaf contends that consolidating the two cases for 

discovery purposes will preserve the parties’ time, effort, and cost. 

Because the above-styled cases involve dissimilar factual and legal 

issues, Skilstaf moves the Court not to consolidate said cases for trial 

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 8 of 10
9

purposes. Rather, Skilstaf moves the Court to consolidate the above-styled 

cases for discovery purposes only. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 s/Charles A. Stewart III 

Charles A. Stewart III (STE067) 

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

The Alabama Center for Commerce 

401 Adams Avenue, Suite 780 

Montgomery, AL 36104 

Telephone: (334) 956-7700 

Facsimile: (334) 956-7701 

cstewart@bradleyarant.com

 s/Amelia T. Driscoll 

Amelia T. Driscoll (DRI016) 

Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

1819 Fifth Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203-2104 

Telephone: (205) 521-8000 

Facsimile: (205) 521-8800 

adriscoll@bradleyarant.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

Skilstaf, Inc. 

 

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 9 of 10
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 13, 2006, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will 

send notification of such filing to the following: 

Robert E. Cole 

437 Chestnut Street, Suite 218 

Philadelphia, PA 19109 

Beth A. Friel 

Jeanne L. Bakker 

Mongtomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads 

123 South Broad Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19109 

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by U. S. Postal Service the document 

to the following non-CM/ECF participants: None. 

/s/ Amelia T. Driscoll 

Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 10 of 10
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 2 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 3 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 4 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 5 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 6 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 7 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 8 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 9 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 10 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 11 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 12 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 13 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 14 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 15 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 16 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 17 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 18 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 19 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 20 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 21 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 22 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 23 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 24 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 25 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 26 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 27 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 28 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 29 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 30 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 31 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 32 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 33 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 34 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 35 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 36 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 37 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 38 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 39 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 40 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 41 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 42 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 43 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 44 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 45 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 46 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 47 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 48 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 49 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 50 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 51 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 52 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 53 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 54 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 55 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 56 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 57 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 58 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 59 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 60 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 61 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 62 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 63 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 64 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 65 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 66 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 67 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 68 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 69 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 70 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 71 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 72 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 73 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 74 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 75 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 76 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 77 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 78 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 79 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 80 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 81 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 82 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 83 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 84 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-2 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 85 of 85
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-3 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-3 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 2 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-3 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 3 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-3 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 4 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-3 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 5 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-3 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 6 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-3 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 7 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-3 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 8 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-3 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 9 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-3 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 10 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-3 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 11 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-4 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-4 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 2 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-4 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 3 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-4 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 4 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-4 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 5 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-4 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 6 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-4 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 7 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-4 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 8 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-4 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 9 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-4 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 10 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-4 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 11 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-5 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-5 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-6 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-7 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-8 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-9 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 29-10 Filed 10/13/2006 Page 1 of 1