CORE/3505308.0002/157330311.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Carrie M. Francis (020453)

Stefan M. Palys (024752) 

Michael Vincent (029864)

STINSON LLP

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584 

Tel: (602) 279-1600 

Fax: (602) 240-6925 

Email: carrie.francis@stinson.com

stefan.palys@stinson.com

michael.vincent@stinson.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeremy Thacker, No. 2:18-cv-00063-PHX-SMM

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO 

DRAFT PRELIMINARY JURY 

INSTRUCTIONS 

Plaintiff,

v.

GPS Insight, LLC; Robert J. Donat, 

Individually and as Trustee of The 

Robert Donat Living Trust Dated April 

19, 2017, 

Defendants.

Defendants have the following objections to the draft preliminary jury instructions 

provided to counsel via email on January 23, 2020:1

• Page 1, Line 19: Object that the phrase “Interference with an Employment 

Relationship” states to the jury that any interference with an employment relationship 

is actionable. Arizona law requires that the interference be improper. See Wagenseller 

v. Scottsdale Mem’l Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 388, 710 P.2d 1025, 1043 (1985) (“We 

therefore adopt the Restatement’s required showing of an “improper” interference. In 

addition to proving the four elements stated in Antwerp, supra, the plaintiff bringing 

a tortious interference action must show that the defendant acted improperly.”). 

Defendants request the word “Improper” be added to modify the instruction to read as 

 

1

 Defendants also respectfully suggest typographical revisions at page 2, line 24 (“invade” 

 “invaded”); page 3, line 8 (“Insigh”  ”Insight”). 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-SMM Document 204 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 3
2 

CORE/3505308.0002/157330311.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

follows: “Improper Interference with an Employment Relationship.” 

• Defendants request that the jury be instructed on Defendants’ defense of conditional 

privilege, as provided in the parties’ joint proposed jury instructions, (Doc. 170 at 75). 

As with truth, the conditional privilege is a defense to the defamation claim (as it 

relates to the alleged cold sore/herpes statement). See Restatement (Second) of Torts 

§ 595. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of January, 2020. 

 STINSON LLP 

By: /s/ Carrie M. Francis 

 Carrie M. Francis

Stefan M. Palys 

Michael Vincent 

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584 

 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-SMM Document 204 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 3
3 

CORE/3505308.0002/157330311.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on January 29, 2020, I caused the foregoing document to be 

filed electronically with the Clerk of Court through ECF; and that ECF will send an 

e-notice of the electronic filing to: 

Joshua W. Carden 

JOSHUA CARDEN LAW FIRM, P.C. 

16427 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 410 

Scottsdale, AZ 85254 

joshua@cardenlawfirm.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Timothy B. O’Connor, Esq. 

SCHNEIDER & ONOFRY, P.C. 

365 East Coronado Road 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

toconnor@soarizonalaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant Robert Donat 

I hereby certify that on January 24, 2020, a courtesy copy will be e-mailed to: 

Judge Stephen M. McNamee 

United States District Court 

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 401 

401 West Washington Street, SPC 58 

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2161 

/s/ Karen Graves 

Case 2:18-cv-00063-SMM Document 204 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 3