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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

_________________

CMS Mechanical Services, LLC, )

) No. CV 15-2040-PHX-NVW

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Phoenix, Arizona

) January 21, 2016

PetSmart, Inc., ) 1:37 p.m.

)

Defendant. )

_____________________________ )

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, JUDGE

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

(Scheduling Conference)

Official Court Reporter:

Laurie A. Adams, RMR, CRR

Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 312

401 West Washington Street, Spc 43

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151

(602) 322-7256

Proceedings Reported by Stenographic Court Reporter

Transcript Prepared by Computer-Aided Transcription

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 25
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff:

OSBORN MALEDON PA

By: Geoffrey MT Sturr, Esq.

By: Hayleigh S. Crawford, Esq.

P.O. Box 36379

Phoenix, Arizona 85067

ALLWEISS & ALLWEISS

By: Michael D. Allweiss, Esq.

913 31st Terrace NE

St. Petersburg, Florida 33704

For the Defendant:

DENTONS US LLP - Phoenix, AZ

By: Joshua S. Akbar, Esq.

2398 East Camelback Road

Suite 850

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 2 of 25
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

13:37:37

13:37:50

13:38:05

13:38:18

13:38:26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: This is Civil Case 2015-2040,

CMS Mechanical Services, LLC, versus PetSmart, Incorporated.

This is the time set for a scheduling conference.

Counsel, please announce for the record.

MR. STURR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Geoffrey

Sturr and Hayleigh Crawford from Osborn Maledon on behalf of

the plaintiff/counterdefendant. With us is Michael Allweiss

who has been admitted pro hac vice.

THE COURT: Mr. Allweiss, what firm are you with?

MR. ALLWEISS: I am with my father, Allweiss &

Allweiss. He's the first Allweiss. I have to tell everybody

that in the name. But he and I have been practicing together

now about 20 years.

THE COURT: Where are you from?

MR. ALLWEISS: St. Petersburg, Florida.

THE COURT: Oh. Okay. You are the Florida guy.

MR. ALLWEISS: I'm the Florida guy. Yeah.

THE COURT: And Ms. Crawford, I don't think you have

been in my court before.

MS. CRAWFORD: I have not. My first time.

THE COURT: I don't need to welcome you because I know

you.

Mr. Akbar.

MR. AKBAR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. I'm here on

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 3 of 25
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

13:38:39

13:38:57

13:39:09

13:39:23

13:39:52

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

behalf of the defendant and the counterplaintiff, PetSmart.

THE COURT: All right. Now, I didn't know Denton was

in Phoenix.

MR. AKBAR: We are. We opened our office here in

2006, very small office. And to this day we're pretty small.

Sort of an anomaly within the firm being the largest firm in

the world now with this 10-lawyer office.

THE COURT: Are you a Phoenix guy they brought in or

somebody they brought to Phoenix?

MR. AKBAR: The latter, technically. I actually

started with the firm's New York office out of law school. I

worked there four and-a-half years. And when I moved here,

which is home for me, the office had just opened so it worked

out great.

THE COURT: Pretty good gig for you to be here instead

of New York.

MR. AKBAR: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I thought I was reading

a first year contracts exam question on this. So I would send

it to my former professor, but he's not with us anymore. So

this is quite an interesting dispute.

And the initial disclosures have been exchanged, and

no one contemplates any amended pleadings.

And I commend you for your mutual desire to try to

simplify this to the extent you have undisputed facts or

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 4 of 25
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

13:40:28

13:40:47

13:41:08

13:41:16

13:41:37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

history. It looks like an awful lot of this will be

undisputed. Some of it probably will be. But you can really

economize this if you can focus on the genuine disputes.

Now, tell me about what -- well, you all say you

contemplate about 10 depositions. Just walk me through who

those are, what the players are. First of all, are you pretty

much agreed on the scope of depositions?

MR. STURR: Your Honor, I believe we are. In our

26(f) conference, we discussed who was likely to be deposed and

agreed on the number that's set forth in the report.

THE COURT: Tell me who they are, or at least if you

don't have the names, at least what their roles are.

MR. STURR: From our side, from the plaintiff's side,

we have two principal witnesses: The president of the company,

his last name is Robert Bull.

Is that right?

MR. ALLWEISS: Yes.

MR. STURR: And Tommy -- his last name? I'm sorry.

MR. ALLWEISS: Tommy Barnes, Your Honor. He's

essentially the sales rep/account manager for the PetSmart

account. Those are the two primary witnesses. There's

obviously, as Your Honor has been able to glean from the

pleading, you essentially have a lot of work being done and

then you have got what the transaction, the contract ultimately

was.

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 5 of 25
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

13:41:58

13:42:05

13:42:23

13:42:42

13:42:58

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

So from our standpoint, then, there's a couple or

three principal actors from PetSmart who were part of those

negotiations and the transaction that we're going to need to

depose.

THE COURT: About three.

MR. ALLWEISS: Yeah.

THE COURT: And what else?

MR. ALLWEISS: From our standpoint?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ALLWEISS: We haven't anticipated anybody else

yet, Judge. What's happening, Your Honor, is as -- you know,

we're already exchanging documents and whatnot so e-mails pop

up, communications pop up where you have got people cc'd on

things so their names are coming up. So we're probably going

to have to do some exploring on both sides, why was this guy

copied, did he participate in anything, we need to talk to him,

that sort of thing.

From PetSmart's side, I don't mean to speak for

counsel, but I will. Part of their counterclaim has an

allegation that some work was done not properly or not in

accordance with the agreement, so depending on the scope and

size of that and you are going to have technicians and whatnot

who might have to be involved as well.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Akbar, do you have

anything to add to that?

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 6 of 25
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

13:43:14

13:43:39

13:43:53

13:44:21

13:44:44

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

MR. AKBAR: No, Your Honor, except that from our

standpoint, two gentlemen that they have identified at CMS

currently we have identified those individuals as well. As Mr.

Allweiss noted, there may very well be others depending on once

we get into the substance of the counterclaim side of things.

On our side we have identified, I believe, four individuals so

far -- five, I'm sorry. And we anticipate that there may be up

to three or so more as we start to get into this.

And there very well may be discovery from a third

party that we have also identified in our disclosures who is

going to be relevant to the counterclaim issues with respect

to --

THE COURT: Tell me briefly what that third party is.

MR. AKBAR: Sure. So the counterclaim, as Mr.

Allweiss alluded to, centers on PetSmart's allegation that some

amount of the preventative maintenance work was not done up to

standard. After the termination of CMS in April of 2015,

PetSmart has now gone to a new vendor. That vendor is First

Service Network. And as part of that vendor coming on board,

that vendor has now essentially gone out and they are in the

process of looking at all of the units to get a sense of their

current state and what will it take to at least bring the units

up to their service level before they start work. And so we

anticipate that that vendor will be directly relevant. And

whether or not a deposition becomes necessary remains to be

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 7 of 25
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

13:45:02

13:45:19

13:45:36

13:45:51

13:46:15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

seen. But there will certainly be documents whether they

ultimately get produced by the vendor or by PetSmart we'll

figure that out. But that vendor is going to be relevant

mostly to the counterclaim issues.

THE COURT: All right. And tell me what expert

testimony is contemplated, Mr. Sturr, on your side.

MR. STURR: I don't know that we necessarily

anticipate having an expert. It would only be with respect to

damages. But we may not need an expert. Mr. Allweiss?

MR. ALLWEISS: Yes. Very well put, Mr. Sturr. Looks

at this point, Judge, if we are going to have an expert at all

it might be on damages, lost profits specifically.

THE COURT: Why wouldn't you have liquidated damages,

your contract amount? Full billing?

MR. ALLWEISS: We wouldn't need an expert for that

because it is a liquidated amount, simple: Tonnage, units

times stores, times set prices equals what we're owed.

THE COURT: How do you get into lost profits if you

win?

MR. ALLWEISS: Well, the contract was terminated, we

argue, terminated early. There was still, I think, two years

plus left on it. So if there was going to be a lost profit

component, it would be on the unperformed part of the

agreement. And obviously, that claim would be dependent upon

our establishing that the termination was improper or that the

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 8 of 25
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

13:46:30

13:46:44

13:46:59

13:47:15

13:47:39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

termination might, even if it was proper, they still owed us

the balance of the contract based on the agreement of the

parties.

THE COURT: Mr. Sturr will tell you that I scare

lawyers by saying things at these conferences that they think I

have made up my mind.

MR. ALLWEISS: Sadly, Judge, I shouldn't say sadly,

Mr. Sturr has already told me that. He had me prepped.

MR. STURR: If I may.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. STURR: Part of the claim we have made here is

that the statement of work -- master statement -- excuse me,

the master agreement says you could terminate only if all

invoices have been paid. Our position is at the time of

termination all invoices had not been paid. Therefore, there

wasn't proper termination. If that was the case that would be

the basis for lost profits.

THE COURT: The question, which might scare, which is

just a question off the top of my head, is it seems like there

might be an election of damages here if there was an

improper -- if there was an agreement overriding the term --

the 30-day termination provision grounded on these discounts,

and that was breached, you have billed for the discounts. That

might be your measure of damage. And it might be inconsistent

with asserting -- affirming the alleged modification which

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 9 of 25
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

13:48:02

13:48:13

13:48:28

13:48:49

13:49:11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

might entitle you to lost profits. But off the top of my head

it seems like you probably shouldn't get both.

MR. STURR: I will go back to my first answer, Your

Honor. I don't think we anticipate having expert testimony.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. ALLWEISS: We're kind of preserving our right, but

we get where you are coming from. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. That's fine.

MR. AKBAR: Your Honor, may I add one thing to that?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. AKBAR: On the experts, obviously to the extent

they have an expert on lost profits we would likely have a

rebuttal. But I share your views, at least at the moment, in

terms of trying to understand where the lost profits come from.

We also may want to have an expert on the issues relating to

the counterclaim. And that would be an expert who is familiar

with the industry and can help assess and quantify the extent

of the damage and can show that work was not performed up to

standard and things of that nature. It's, I think, too early

to tell whether we're going to need that because the

investigation is still ongoing. But I just want to put that

out there as another possible --

THE COURT: That looks like a garden variety

construction case. And you probably would need experts for

that, would you?

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 10 of 25
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

13:49:20

13:49:36

13:49:53

13:50:20

13:50:36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

MR. AKBAR: Wouldn't?

THE COURT: Would.

MR. AKBAR: Oh, would. I think so. But again, from

our perspective, since the investigation is still ongoing we

have to really see what we're getting at here. But in terms of

quantifying the damages and in terms of helping to show that

work was performed not up to standard, I do think --

THE COURT: Has your replacement contractor already

told you that it was deficient work?

MR. AKBAR: What they have seen so far, their view,

and again, whether you would think this is biased or not, they

would probably argue it is. But they have said that they have

observed things that they do not believe to be consistent with

performing to an industry standard.

THE COURT: Well, I'm just going to take that as

preliminary, and you will have to see how that plays out.

Well, your schedule for fact discovery seems

reasonable. So we'll -- let me back up. On the plaintiff's

claim, that's pretty straightforward. That's pretty much just

what the negotiations and communications were, right?

MR. STURR: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: But the counterclaim is messy.

MR. STURR: The counterclaim is preliminary in our

view. We weren't aware of any discrepancies until we received

the counterclaim. And it may be an evolving claim. That's why

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 11 of 25
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

13:50:55

13:51:12

13:51:28

13:51:48

13:52:08

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

I think we built in time in the discovery schedule for that

reason. We didn't want to have to come back to you.

THE COURT: I don't mind you coming back if things

develop in a way that warrants a change in the schedule.

MR. STURR: That was the conversation that we had at

our 26(f) conference was we thought this was a generous period

of time given the matters in dispute, but we wanted to make

sure we were giving ourselves enough time to complete the

discovery not knowing fully at this point how extensive that

discovery may be.

MR. AKBAR: And from our perspective, Your Honor, I

agree on the contract side of things. It's much more

straightforward. There's going to be some ESI, and we're

currently in the process of negotiating an ESI protocol. A lot

of this is going to be e-mails and spreadsheets and that kind

of material. But on the counterclaim side, just to put more

context on the timing, when we prepared the counterclaim in

December the investigation by the vendor was obviously still

ongoing and it continues to be ongoing now. So we're trying to

get our arms around what they have and when it will be done.

We don't anticipate that it is going to take much longer. But

I fully agree that that's the part of the case where until we

really have everything laid bare for us we're not going to

really be able to tell the direction. And again, that's why

when we had the Rule 26(f) we built the schedule as such.

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 12 of 25
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

13:52:27

13:52:50

13:53:11

13:53:32

13:53:51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

THE COURT: So one way to view it is that if the

counterclaim doesn't play out, eight months is more than

enough. And if it does play out, it might not be enough. But

actually depending -- all right. I will tell you what. I

think it makes sense to go with your schedule. So we'll set

September 30 as the deadline for fact discovery.

Now, again, Mr. Akbar, are you in agreement that the

only prospect for expert testimony would be on the

counterclaim?

MR. AKBAR: From our perspective, yes, unless they

also do an expert on damages in which case we'll do a rebuttal

to that. But, yes, affirmatively, we do not anticipate needing

expert testimony on their claims.

THE COURT: So, Mr. Sturr, when do you have to fish or

cut bait on your damage theory, at the close of the evidence?

MR. STURR: Well, I think, Your Honor, perhaps before

then under Rule 26 we have to make disclosures. And at this

point, we have put a placeholder in our initial Disclosure

Statement for anything on other than the contractual damages.

THE COURT: What I'm getting to is the lost profits

aspect of the damages.

MR. STURR: That's what I was alluding to, Your Honor.

We put a placeholder in the disclosure for lost profits. I

would need to confer with Mr. Allweiss, but I think we would

make that determination early in the discovery process.

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 13 of 25
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

13:54:15

13:54:27

13:54:48

13:55:10

13:55:23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

THE COURT: Yeah. It really would make sense.

Otherwise you are just wasting a lot of legal fees.

MR. STURR: I can tell you now, Judge, I think it's

unlikely that we will pursue that. But I don't want to say

that definitively.

THE COURT: Well, you are looking at 2.6 million just

on your simple liquidated damage claim, so that's pretty good.

MR. STURR: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And lost profits, man, you know how messy

that is to prove.

All right. So let's get back to expert disclosures.

You all have sequenced them to have the expert

disclosures begin after the close of fact discovery. Sometimes

that's necessary but sometimes it's not.

With respect -- if you want to pursue lost profits,

doesn't seem like you would need the fact discovery to pursue

that. Wouldn't that all be internal information that you could

give to your damage expert and have him get going?

MR. STURR: Yes.

THE COURT: I'm not sure of that.

MR. STURR: Yes. I think that's correct.

THE COURT: So we wouldn't have to wait for the close

of discovery for that component of expert disclosures.

MR. STURR: If I may interrupt you, Your Honor, I'm

sorry. We discussed this in the 26(f) conference. And there

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 14 of 25
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

13:55:39

13:56:01

13:56:14

13:56:32

13:56:49

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

was a request that we stagger, and I have done that in other

cases. So we agreed to do it in this case. We would postpone

the expert discovery until we completed fact discovery.

THE COURT: I like to think through whether you

actually need to postpone it, and it's different in different

cases. So I think we have figured out that you don't really

need to defer pursuing your lost damage -- lost profits damage

expert disclosures to the completion of fact discovery. So

then the question is what other experts, and that's the

counterclaim.

MR. STURR: That's right.

MR. AKBAR: And on that one, the big unknown, because

this is an ongoing investigation, is exactly when we're going

to be at a point when we're even going to have all of the

material in. I would be very surprised if what we're taking

about is six months down the line, that's not what we're being

told. But on the other hand, I just don't feel comfortable yet

saying we will have it by X and then be able to give it to an

expert to be able to do a report by X.

THE COURT: Well, I understand you have to do more

investigation. But what's your realistic assessment of how far

you need to get down the road before you make a decision

whether you really want to pursue that counterclaim?

MR. AKBAR: Well, we need to get, from the vendor, the

results of the investigation and the investigation needs to be

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 15 of 25
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

13:57:07

13:57:18

13:57:32

13:57:49

13:58:10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

complete, meaning they have been able to go out and inspect,

literally, thousands of HVAC units scattered around the

country. And while they have made a lot of progress on it,

it's not done.

THE COURT: What's your ballpark estimate of how long

it's going to take them to complete that?

MR. AKBAR: Well, what we're --

THE COURT: And give you their assessment.

MR. AKBAR: We have been told that -- and the last we

had heard was maybe at the beginning of the year. We had been

told it was probably going to be at least a few more weeks.

THE COURT: That's fine.

MR. AKBAR: This is not months and months from now.

But, of course, that's just us getting the documents and

information for the first time. And I think what we're going

to need to do on our end, before we invest money, giving all

this information to an expert, because we're, the lawyers and

the client, are going to need to look at it and say, okay, now

what do we do with this? Do we still pursue this? What do we

do? How do we frame it?

THE COURT: One way to come at this is to not try to

set that schedule now and come back in a few months after they

have made a decision whether they are even earnest about a

counterclaim and then we've got a construction case on our

hands. That's probably a better way to come at this than do a

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 16 of 25
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

13:58:26

13:58:47

13:59:04

13:59:26

13:59:37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

contingent hypothetical scheduled for what may or may not

develop.

MR. AKBAR: We concur. I'm happy to agree to that.

Are you envisioning maybe a status conference?

THE COURT: No. We would basically, with respect to

the plaintiff's claim, I think we can finish the schedule. I

would be coming back for resumption of this case management

conference in light of -- if, in fact, the defendant elects not

to pursue that counterclaim then we'll stay with the schedule

I'm setting today. If you do want to pursue the counterclaim

we'll have to come up with a schedule that fits that. It may

well impact on the schedule for the first claim.

So my thought would be for you all to do that. And

actually, frankly, if you are going to pursue the counterclaim

I think I would want you all to give me a revised post-schedule

key to that. And like I said, even though the schedule is set

now for the plaintiff's claim we'll schedule -- we'll mesh

everything together so it all works together even if it means

changing what I have said today.

So everybody is in agreement, right?

MR. STURR: Yes, sir.

MR. AKBAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Let me finish the schedule. I guess this

will be on the assumption the counterclaim does not go and it

will all be up for revision if we have to schedule a

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 17 of 25
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

14:00:05

14:01:02

14:01:20

14:01:52

14:02:19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

counterclaim.

All right. On that hypothesis, I would think we could

have, if there's going to be disclosures on damages, that could

all be completed by the September 30 date as well. So let's

just count backwards. Really, that leaves plenty of time.

Well, we could set -- it would be the plaintiff's initial

expert disclosure and lost profit damages, perhaps the -- how

about the middle of May? And then we might set the end of June

for the defendant's initial expert disclosures on that, purely

rebuttal disclosures by middle to late July. And that will

leave you two months to do depositions of those experts. That

sounds like a pretty leisurely schedule, doesn't it?

MR. STURR: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's set May 20 for the

plaintiff's initial expert disclosures; June 30 for the

defendant's responding and initial expert disclosures. That's

actually on a Thursday. But some day you will thank me for not

setting it on Friday, July 1st. So and then we'll set July

22nd for any purely rebuttal disclosures by the plaintiff and

September 30 also for the close of all expert discovery.

MR. AKBAR: Your Honor, may I clarify?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. AKBAR: The June 30th date for our response, is

that date for at least the moment also a date by which we would

have to disclose experts?

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 18 of 25
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

14:03:15

14:03:58

14:04:14

14:04:38

14:04:56

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

THE COURT: Yes. You would have to supply your

written expert disclosure. So that's giving you about six

weeks for that.

I'm just thinking through whether -- how much of the

rest of my schedule makes sense to set now understanding that

we have a very big contingency here? I guess the only

principal thing is we could set a dispositive motions deadline

but that would be on the assumption we don't have to come back

to talk about the counterclaim. I think we'll go ahead and do

that. But we'll have to reset that if we do come back.

So with the close of discovery on September 30th, 30

days should be enough for motions, correct?

MR. AKBAR: Yes.

MR. STURR: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We'll set -- we'll make it Friday, October

28th. I almost always set deadlines on Fridays. I know that's

when lawyers get things done.

So does it make a -- now, I require in every case that

the parties have a good faith settlement conference. I require

that the parties and counsel meet, and that means human beings

with settlement authority at the same time and the same place.

You have to talk about settlement. You don't have to settle

the case. You don't even have to make a settlement offer. You

all have to be there and you have to talk about it, and you

have to file a one-line report telling me you did that. And I

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 19 of 25
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

14:05:19

14:05:39

14:05:51

14:06:08

14:06:25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

do that to get over the barriers to communication that exist in

some cases, perhaps not in this case, and also to require

everybody to think about settlement at the same time so we

don't have a lot of energy put into it on one side that sits in

somebody's in-box for 60 days.

Now, you all had suggested -- what had you suggested

here. I don't recall what day you suggested.

MR. STURR: I'm sorry, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Had you all made a suggested --

MR. ALLWEISS: November 11, 2016.

MR. STURR: As a deadline.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. STURR: For -- I think we were referring to a sort

of an informal settlement process. As I noted in the report

those discussions are already underway. There's a meeting of

principals that will take place within two weeks.

MR. ALLWEISS: February 2nd.

THE COURT: Tell you what. I'm just going to set a

generous time, because you can satisfy my requirement tomorrow

if you want. I just set a time by which time you have to have

done it. That doesn't look like that's going to be a problem

so I will just set a generous time. Why don't we just set

September 30 also. I would expect you would have done that

long before then.

Now, if you do want a settlement conference with a

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 20 of 25
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

14:06:43

14:07:02

14:07:28

14:07:44

14:08:03

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

magistrate judge and you both request it, I will order that.

Bear in mind that it takes the magistrate judges six weeks,

maybe longer, to get it on their schedule. So if you have a

time in mind be sure to get the request in enough in advance so

that we can get that done. This might -- well, yeah.

MR. STURR: Our expectation is we hope the direct

discussions will be fruitful. If not, and we get to the point

where a third party is helpful, we would either request the

magistrate judge or agree to a private mediator.

THE COURT: If this turns into a construction case, it

really changes the lay of the land. I give this speech in

every construction case, and that is, if you really have a

construction lawsuit, and if you think you are right, as

opposed to betting on jury confusion, think about the wisdom of

submitting it to binding arbitration with somebody

knowledgeable about construction. It's much less expensive to

process. Your prospect of getting an accurate decision is much

higher.

And actually, I think maybe -- I don't know if anybody

ever takes me up on it, but they usually get their construction

cases settled. So maybe it doesn't matter.

And you could proceed on both tracks. If we wanted to

have a trial on the plaintiff's claim we could do that

consistent with the submission of a construction counterclaim

to binding arbitration, and we would sequence that so that both

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 21 of 25
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

14:08:31

14:08:47

14:09:05

14:09:27

14:09:38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

matters are judgments entered at the same time so we don't have

a problem of asynchronous judgments being entered. So there

are a variety of ways you all can deal with that.

All right. Nick, I think that's everything on my list

that we can do today, right?

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Do you want a pretrial order

deadline?

THE COURT: Oh, yeah. Pretrial order deadline.

I set a contingent date for submission of a proposed

joint final pretrial statement in event there are no

dispositive motions. But that date will drop out and I will

reset it after ruling on the dispositive motions. So if I'm

giving you to October 28th, you are going to know long before

October 28th whether any dispositive motions are being filed.

So, perhaps, tell you what. I think I'd like to set

November 18 as the deadline for submission of a proposed joint

final pretrial statement because that's the Friday before

Thanksgiving week, and I don't want to ruin anyone's

Thanksgiving.

Counsel, is there anything else that either of you

would like to bring up that would assist us in processing the

case?

MR. STURR: Not from the plaintiff's side, Your Honor.

MR. AKBAR: Just a question. With respect to the

schedule and really with respect to the counterclaim, if it

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 22 of 25
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

14:09:57

14:10:16

14:10:30

14:10:54

14:11:19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

23

turns out that the counterclaim takes on a life of its own and

such, how would you like us to come back to you?

THE COURT: Well, you know, I guess I was thinking

that as soon as you make that decision, either let the other

side know -- if you are not going to pursue the counterclaim,

let them know. Also let me know. But if you are -- I would

want you to request a resumption of this conference, but as I

said, I would like you both to submit proposed additional

schedules in light of that before we come in.

So I don't know if I need to set a deadline for that.

MR. STURR: Would it be helpful for the Court if we

picked a date and agreed to give you a status report on these

issues?

THE COURT: The ball is in your court, Mr. Akbar, so

what date would you suggest?

MR. AKBAR: I want to say at least in April. That

gives us enough time. So can we say maybe April 15th or so,

depending on what day of the week that is?

THE COURT: Well, it's a Friday but you will all be

busy paying your income taxes on all that money you are making.

Is that an okay date?

MR. STURR: That's fine, Your Honor. I just think it

would helpful for us and for the Court if we were to give you

an update on where we are on the lost profits claim and the --

THE COURT: Yes. Right. Right. Well, that ball is

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 23 of 25
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

14:11:28

14:11:54

14:12:14

14:12:29

14:12:41

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

24

in your court. So what date would you suggest that I set for

you to update?

MR. STURR: I think the middle of April is probably

fine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We'll set April 15 as the date for status

conference for both sides as to those two questions as to where

you stand. And depending on what your answer is, as I said, it

may occasion some adjustments to the schedule.

Anything else, Mr. Akbar?

MR. AKBAR: Nothing from our perspective, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So I just figured out what you all should

do, is if that counterclaim is pursued send that to an

arbitrator and come try the main case. Because I'd love to try

that case. We don't get many really good business trials here.

It's what I used to do. And my law clerks don't have enough

occasion to see good business trials. So I'm sure you all will

try a good case for me.

MR. AKBAR: Let's call off the settlement meeting.

Judge's prerogative.

MR. ALLWEISS: I'm sure we could stir up some more

disputes and be right back here on something else if we had to.

THE COURT: Seriously, though, I do wish you luck on

getting it resolved.

We'll be adjourned.

(Proceeding concluded at 2:12 p.m.)

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 24 of 25
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

25

C E R T I F I C A T E

I, LAURIE A. ADAMS, do hereby certify that I am duly

appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter for

the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute

a full, true, and accurate transcript of all of that portion of

the proceedings contained herein, had in the above-entitled

cause on the date specified therein, and that said transcript

was prepared under my direction and control.

DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 10th day of January,

2017.

s/Laurie A. Adams

_______________________________

Laurie A. Adams, RMR, CRR

Case 2:15-cv-02040-NVW Document 104 Filed 01/10/17 Page 25 of 25