Issuu on Google+

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 1 of 22 PageID #: 5143

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI KMART CORPORATION VS.

PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-103-GHD-DAS

THE KROGER CO., E&A SOUTHEAST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FULTON IMPROVEMENTS, LLC, KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, CITY OF CORINTH, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JOHN DOE, and ABC CORPORATION

DEFENDANTS

JOINT RESPONSE TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF JAMES MONOHAN COME NOW, The Kroger Co. (“Kroger”), E&A Southeast Limited Partnership (“E&A”), and Fulton Improvements, LLC (“Fulton”)(collectively, the “Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel of record, and file this their Joint Response to Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of James Monohan, and in support thereof would state unto the Court the following, to-wit: 1.

On October 8, 2013, Kmart filed its Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of

James Monohan (“Kmart’s Motion”) and a supporting memorandum.1 [Doc. Nos. 263 and 264] Kmart’s Motion seeks to exclude the testimony “of Mr. Monohan regarding flow rates.”2 [Doc. No. 263 at 1] 2.

Kmart argues that Monohan’s opinions regarding “flow rates” should be excluded

under FED.R.EVID. 702. Kmart asserts that Monohan’s analysis is unreliable because it is devoid of factual support. Kmart’s primary position is as follows: 1

On October 24, 2013, the Court entered an order granting the motion filed by Kroger, E&A, and Fulton for an extension of time to respond to Kmart’s Motion, see Doc. No. 281; pursuant to that Order, Kroger, E&A, and Fulton have until November 1, 2013 to file their response. [Doc. No. 282] 2 Kmart’s Motion is apparently directed at only a portion of Mr. Monohan’s anticipated testimony.


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 2 of 22 PageID #: 5144

Mr. Monohan seeks to critique the modeling performed by Kmart’s expert, John Krewson. But in doing so, Mr. Monohan relies on incorrect flow data and admits that he does not even know the correct flow data because he himself performed no modeling. Therefore, Mr. Monohan’s testimony regarding flow rates is not reliable and should be excluded. [Doc. No. 264 at 1]

However, as demonstrated herein, and in the Defendants’

contemporaneously filed memorandum in support, which is incorporated herein by reference, Monohan’s opinions regarding flow rates are amply supported by the facts before the Court and his training, education, and experience. 3.

On May 2, 2011, Kmart filed its Complaint against Kroger, E&A, Fulton, Kansas

City Southern Railway Company (“KCSR”), the City of Corinth (“Corinth”), and the United States of America (“United States”) based on claims arising from a flood which occurred on May 2, 2010. [Doc. No. 1 at 1, 5] In its Complaint, Kmart alleges its store in Corinth “incurred flood damages as a result of Kroger’s location within a floodway, which was allowed pursuant to a Letter of Map Revision.”3 [Doc. 1 at 1-2] 4.

John R. Krewson submitted an expert report dated September 20, 2012 on behalf

of Kmart in order to “evaluate the causes and the extent of the flooding that occurred at the [Kmart store in Corinth, Mississippi] on May 2, 2010”. [Exhibit C at 2] This expert report states that, “[t]o determine the impact of the Kroger encroachment and general conditions of the flood hazard at the time of the May 2, 2010 flood,” Krewson prepared a “HEC-RAS evaluation for the site using as-built survey data and flows for the area listed in FEMA’s 2009 Flood Insurance

3

The building which houses the Kroger store was removed from the floodway by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) through a “Letter of Map Revision Floodway Determination Document (Removal)” (the “LOMR”) issued on November 18, 2005, because of FEMA’s determination that the structure was inadvertently included in the floodway. [Exhibit A at 1] The removal of the Kroger store from the floodway was re-validated by FEMA for the new flood maps which became effective in September 2010. [Exhibit B, exhibit 2 thereto]

2


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 3 of 22 PageID #: 5145

Study.”4 [Exhibit C at 6] Krewson concluded in his report that “[t]he presence of the Kroger as well as other buildings in the floodway increased the depth of flooding during the flood event of May 2, 2010, causing damage to Kmart.” [Exhibit C at 7] 5.

Kmart relies entirely upon the testimony of Krewson for its evidence that the

Kroger store caused flood damage to the Kmart store during the flood event of May 2, 2010. [Exhibit D at 15-17] 6.

Krewson conducted three “runs” using the HEC-RAS software in connection with

formulating his opinions. [Exhibit B at 112] According to him, the first run was based on an “unobstructed floodway and produced 100-year flood elevations on the site comparable with those shown in the 2009 Flood Insurance Study done by FEMA.” [Exhibit B at 113] The second run was done using the as-built section with the “Kroger obstruction in place”; Krewson claims that the second run revealed that there “ended up being a one-foot rise [at the Kmart site] when compared to the previous run without the Kroger obstruction.” [Exhibit B at 113-14] The third run using the HEC-RAS software was based on Krewson’s assumption that “the creek channel was clean and had . . . a low growth vegetation . . . and there were no floodway obstructions.” [Exhibit B at 115] The third run was an idealized model and did not have the Kroger store in it; it showed that the “water level dropped two feet” from the first run. [Exhibit B at 115] So, without the Kroger store and a cleaned Elam Creek, Krewson asserted that the third run showed a two foot drop in the water level. [Exhibit B at 116] Krewson testified that he used the flow rate data for his HEC-RAS modeling that is set forth in FEMA’s 2009 Flood Insurance Study. [Exhibit B at 195]

4

HEC-RAS is a computer program which can be used to predict the behavior of water as it drains over land. [See Exhibit B at 186-93]

3


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 4 of 22 PageID #: 5146

7.

In his deposition, however, Krewson admitted that there was a mistake in his

HEC-RAS analysis as it pertains to the claims that the Kroger store caused flooding at the Kmart store. [See Exhibit B at 117, 207-12] Krewson admitted that in HEC-RAS runs one and three he used a flow rate of 3,702 cubic feet per second. [Exhibit B at 196] Neither runs one or three reflect the existence of the Kroger store. [Exhibit B at 196-97] According to Krewson, a flow rate of 3,702 cubic feet represents a 100-year flood.

[Exhibit B, exhibit 12 thereto at 9]

Krewson’s HEC-RAS run two, which reflects the existence of the Kroger store, used a flow rate of 5,202 cubic feet per second. [Exhibit B at 116, 197, 221-22] Krewson’s testimony indicates that these flow rates should have been the same for all three runs. [Exhibit B at 117] 8.

The inconsistent flow rate values were not easily detectable in Krewson’s

September 20, 2012 report. [Exhibit E at ¶ 8] Those inconsistent values were only discovered through a “careful examination of the HEC-RAS computer code” by Monohan and would not have been found otherwise. [Exhibit E at ¶ 8] In Monohan’s opinion, the average lay person would not be able to locate the inconsistencies that he found and would also not be able to explain the impact of the inconsistencies as they relate to generating reliable results within the bounds of sound engineering practices from the HEC-RAS program. [Exhibit E at ¶ 8] 9.

Krewson also admitted that he was not trying to model the flooding that actually

occurred on May 2, 2010 in connection with the creation of his opinions. [Exhibit B at 228-29] Krewson testified that his model was never intended to re-create the events which occurred on May 2, 2010 at the site made the subject of this litigation. [Exhibit B at 230] Krewson’s testimony shows that he intended to use the flow rates for the 100-year flood model for each of the runs in his HEC-RAS model. [Exhibit B at 230-31]

4


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 5 of 22 PageID #: 5147

10.

On June 28, 2013, E&A, Fulton, and Kroger submitted to Plaintiff their respective

expert designations. [Doc. Nos. 162, 163, and 164] E&A, Fulton, and Kroger each identified Monohan as an expert witness. Defendants provided to Kmart Monohan’s “Expert Review and Report on Mr. John R. Krewson’s Flooding Evaluation (dated September 20, 2012) and Deposition (dated May 22, 2013)” (“Monohan’s Report”), and a true and correct copy of Monohan’s Report is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 11.

In Monohan’s report, he explains why the “comparative” or “hypothetical”

approach taken by Krewson in the modeling described during his deposition and in Krewson’s initial report was improper. [Exhibit F at 5] Monohan observes further that, apparently “[b]ased on his assessment of the rainfall magnitude being approximately the 100-year, Mr. Krewson chose to use the FEMA published 100-year flow on Elam Creek of 3,702 cubic feet per second (cfs) in his model runs, as listed in Table 1 of the Flood Insurance Study Report” and that the modeling used by Krewson “did not attempt to recreate the actual flow that was observed on May 2, 2010 for Elam Creek.” [Exhibit F at 5] Monohan states in his report that “the flow data should have been refined to as close as practicable [to] replicate the peak flood flow that actually occurred on Elam Creek on May 2, 2010, along the modeled reach.” [Exhibit F at 5] Monohan explains that Krewson, during his visit to the site after the flood, could have identified high water marks which could have been measured and surveyed to establish “more reliable estimates of the peak flood elevations at these locations.” [Exhibit F at 5] Monohan concludes in his report that Krewson’s opinion is not reliable from an engineering standpoint because it is based on a “comparative” or “hypothetical” model and cannot be relied upon to isolate and examine potential causal factors. [See Exhibit F at 5-6]

5


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 6 of 22 PageID #: 5148

12.

Even assuming that a “comparative” or “hypothetical” model could be used, or in

other words would produce a reliable result from an engineering standpoint, Monohan further observes in his report that the flow rates used in the modeling were not the same. [Exhibit F at 6] Monohan concludes from his review of Krewson’s model and underlying data that the “abrupt rise [in flood water] is the result of the much higher flow value used for Run 2.” [Exhibit F at 7] Monohan further observes that, “[b]ecause inconsistent flood flows were used for HEC-RAS Runs 1 and 2, no conclusion can be drawn regarding the effect of the Kroger building on the flood elevation at Kmart.” [Exhibit F at 9] 13.

Plaintiff took the deposition of Monohan on September 6, 2013. [Exhibit G at 1]

During the deposition of Monohan, Kmart’s counsel questioned him regarding the inconsistent flow rates used by Krewson in his first report: Q:

Well, let me ask you. I mean, is part of your opinions in this case that Mr. Krewson, in his modeling, used an incorrect flow capacity?

A:

Are we talking about a flow rate?

Q:

Yes. Cubic feet per second?

A:

I believe my assertion is that he used inconsistent flow rates.

Q:

Okay.

A:

I don’t know whether they were necessarily correct or not, but they were inconsistent between the different runs.

Q:

And you say that the 100-year flow rate, 5202 cubic feet per second is inflated. Right?

A:

I believe I did say that.

Q:

Okay. And you say that on page 6?

A:

Okay. Yes.

Q:

But that’s not correct. Right? 6


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 7 of 22 PageID #: 5149

A:

Well, it’s inflated above the 100-year flood value for the other two runs.

Q:

Well, but it’s not correct that 5202 cubic feet per second is an inflated 100-year flow. Right?

A:

I have to ask you to restate that. I’m sorry.

Q:

5202 cubic feet per second is the correct flow rate for the 100-year storm at Elam Creek, where the Kmart-Kroger site, near the Kmart-Kroger site. Right?

A:

No. That’s not my position at all.

Q:

That’s not your position?

A:

No.

... Q:

Okay. Mr. Mendrop testified yesterday and also said in his report that 4900 cubic feet per second is the correct flow rate for that area. Do you disagree with Mr. Mendrop?

A:

I don’t agree or disagree. I don’t know. I personally don’t know what the correct flow rate is because I haven’t done any modeling.

Q:

So you’re criticizing Mr. Krewson for using inconsistent flow rates, but you, yourself, don’t know which flow rate is the right one?

A:

No, I don’t know which one is the right one. I don’t know which one best matches what actually happened during the flood event of May 2, 2010.

[Exhibit G at 78-79] In this testimony, Monohan maintains his position, as originally stated in his report, that Krewson used inconsistent flow rate data in the HEC-RAS computer modeling on which Krewson relies for his “comparative” or “hypothetical” analysis.

Monohan further

explains that he does not know which flow rate is the “right” one for the subject property, i.e. right in the sense of what the flow rate actually was on May 2, 2010 when the flood at issue took place, because he has not done any modeling. 14.

As to when he was asked in his deposition what was the “correct” flow value,

Monohan explains that his answer reflects that he has not done any modeling to estimate the 7


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 8 of 22 PageID #: 5150

May 2, 2010 Elam Creek flood flow. [Exhibit E at ¶7] Monohan, unlike Krewson, was never in a position to collect the evidence necessary to perform reliable modeling. [See Exhibit E at ¶¶ 7-8]

Of course, as Monohan observes, Krewson has not performed any such reliable

modeling either; instead, Krewson simply assumes the FEMA 100-year flow is a good match to the actual flood with no physical evidence in support. [Exhibit E at ¶ 7] 15.

Monohan totally rejects Krewson’s “comparative” or “hypothetical” analysis and

observes that governmental entities charged with handling such issues do not use Krewson’s approach. [See Exhibit E at ¶¶ 4-7 and exhibit A thereto] Monohan explains that Krewson, in his September 20, 2012 report, attempts to use the FEMA 100-year recurrence interval flow value for his HEC-RAS evaluations but provides no evidence that the flood event of May 2, 2010 on Elam Creek at the Kmart location approximated this discharge value. [Exhibit E at ¶ 4] Such evidence is necessary and would have been found in the form of high water marks along the section of Elam Creek that was the focus of Krewson’s modeling. [Exhibit E at ¶ 4] This evidence could have been collected by Krewson during his visits to the site shortly after the flood at issue occurred. [Exhibit E at ¶ 4] However, it does not appear from Monohan’s review of Krewson’s September 20, 2012 report that he either collected or used such evidence. [Exhibit E at ¶ 4] 16.

While Krewson states in his September 20, 2012 report that his initial model

produced flood elevations comparable with those in the FEMA study, his initial model results should instead be compared to the actual May 2, 2010 flood elevations in order to reach a conclusion based “on sound and reliable engineering methods.” [Exhibit E at ¶ 5] 17.

On July 25, 2013, Kmart filed its Motion for Leave to File Amended Report of

John R. Krewson, Motion to Continue Discovery Deadline, or, in the Alternative, Motion to 8


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 9 of 22 PageID #: 5151

Continue Trial Date. [Doc. No. 176 at 1] This Motion attached a second report from Krewson dated July 23, 2013. [Doc. No. 176-5] In support of this Motion, Kmart explained that Krewson discovered a mistake in his modeling during his deposition on May 22, 2013 regarding the inconsistent flow rates. [Doc. No. 177 at 1-3] Kmart further explained in that pleading that “when Mr. Krewson used the corrected figures, he found that the presence of the Kroger store caused no significant difference in the rise of the flood at Kmart’s store.” [Doc. 177 at 4 (emphasis added)] 18.

On August 21, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge David A. Sanders entered an

Order which denied Kmart’s request for leave for Krewson to amend his expert report. [Doc. No. 213 at 1] Magistrate Judge Sanders concluded that Krewson’s second report, in fact, presented a new theory of liability: “Because this second report presents a new theory of liability, the court concludes that allowing an amendment at this late juncture would be prejudicial to the defendants.” [Doc. No. 213 at 5] 19.

In response, Kmart filed Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File the Amended Report of John R. Krewson, see Doc. No. 227, and a memorandum in support. [Doc. No. 228] Thereafter, the District Court entered an order on September 27, 2013 advising that it would “consider an amendment of mathematical errors only,” and it requested that the Plaintiff submit “a proposed amendment of only mathematical errors in Krewson’s report, and further, that copies of this proposed amendment be timely furnished to Defendants.” [Doc. No. 243] 20.

On October 11, 2013, Kmart filed its Motion for Leave to File Amended Report of

John R. Krewson pursuant to Court Order.5 [Doc. No. 271 at 1] This particular Motion attached 5

As stated previously, Defendants intend to oppose said Motion and seek to prohibit the introduction of Krewson’s

9


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 10 of 22 PageID #: 5152

a third report from Krewson dated October 11, 2013. [Doc. No. 271-1] Kmart asserts that “Krewson revised the HEC-RAS flow data and the flow data discrepancy that appeared in his original report was corrected from 3,702 cubic feet per second (CFS) to 5,202 cfs.” [Doc. No. 271 at 1] Kmart further asserts that “the Manning N values contained in Mr. Krewson’s original report were also corrected to reflect the conditions of the channel of Elam Creek and the flooding depths occurring at the time of the loss to Kmart’s store in Corinth, Mississippi on May 2, 2010.” [Doc. No. 271 at 1] In Krewson’s third and latest report, he explains that the HEC-RAS flow rate data was revised and the flow data discrepancy was “corrected from 3702 cfs to 5202 cfs.” [Doc. No. 271-1 at 8] Importantly, Krewson provides no explanation in his latest report for his conclusion that the flow rate of 5,202 cfs is the “correct” flow rate that should be used in his modeling. [See Doc. No. 271-1] Krewson advises in the October 11, 2013 report that the “results of these models found that the addition of the Kroger store to the site resulted in [a] two inch rise in the flood elevation compared to the flood elevation for the Kmart only site with no Kroger.” [Doc. No. 271-1 at 8] 21.

It was not until Plaintiff filed its Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of James

Monohan, Doc. No. 263, and its supporting memorandum that Kmart disclosed how Krewson calculated what he contends to be the “correct” flow rate that should be used for his HEC-RAS model. [Doc. No. 264 at 2 n. 5] Utilizing certain data in FEMA’s 2009 Flood Insurance Study, Krewson has apparently added together the peak discharge value for a 100-year flood in Elam Creek at Highway 45, i.e. 3,702 cfs, to the peak discharge value for a 100-year flood in Turner Creek at its mouth on Elam Creek, i.e. 1,500 cfs, which yields a total of 5,202 cfs. [Doc. No. 264 at 2 n. 5] Again, as with Monohan’s third report, Kmart offers no explanation for why it is “third bite at the apple” by a separate pleading.

10


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 11 of 22 PageID #: 5153

permissible to add these two peak discharge values together to arrive at a flow rate of 5,202 cfs for Krewson’s model. 22.

According to Monohan, however, it is not permissible to add these two peak

discharge values together to calculate a flow rate of 5,202 cfs: The 5,202 cfs value which Kmart claims to be correct in the motion to exclude a portion of my testimony is not correct. Kmart’s value of 5,202 cfs was computed by adding together the peak 100-year flow of Elam Creek at Highway 45 and the peak 100-year flow of Turner Creek at its mouth, which are listed in Table 1 of the FEMA Flood Insurance Study relied upon by Mr. Krewson. In accordance with sound engineering and hydrologic practices, peak flows on tributary streams typically can’t be added together because the flood peaks occur at different times. [Exhibit E at ¶ 10 (emphasis added)] A smaller tributary’s peak flow occurs prior to the larger tributary’s peak flow, due to the shorter travel time needed for the smaller tributary’s flood wave to reach the confluence.6 [Exhibit E at ¶ 10] The peak flow of the combined tributaries at the confluence is therefore less than the sum of the two tributary peak flows. [Exhibit E at ¶ 11] Turner Creek, with a drainage area of 2.34 square miles, would peak prior to the peaking of Elam Creek, which has a drainage area of 6.09 square miles, at their confluence near Highway 45. [Exhibit E at ¶ 11] Consequently, Krewson’s methodology in this instance is flawed, and results in an erroneous and unreliable estimation of the FEMA 100-year peak flow.7 [Exhibit E at ¶ 11] 23.

In fact, even if one were to assume – solely for the sake of argument – that it was

appropriate to use the FEMA 100-year flow rate for Krewson’s evaluation, “then no modeling would be necessary for [Monohan] to determine the peak flow rate for the property made the subject of this litigation,” because “[i]t can be found in the HEC-2 computer code for the May

6

For the benefit of the Court, Monohan has provided an illustration that demonstrates this fact. [Exhibit E at 5] In Monohan’s opinion, Krewson’s attempt to determine the FEMA 100-year peak flow by adding the two figures together from Table 1 of the FEMA Flood Insurance Study “suggests a lack of basic, fundamental knowledge in hydrology.” [Exhibit E at ¶ 12] 7

11


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 12 of 22 PageID #: 5154

1979 study of Elam Creek.” [Exhibit E at ¶ 9] This data is still the effective FEMA model for Elam Creek, and the FEMA Flood Insurance Study on which Krewson relied in selecting flow rate values is based on that data from 1979. [See Exhibit E at ¶ 9] While Krewson testified that he could not find this data,8 see Krewson Depo. at 239, it “is still available from the FEMA Library and was included as Appendix I in [Monohan’s] expert report.” [Exhibit E at ¶ 9] As indicated by the HEC-2 computer code for the May 1979 study of Elam Creek, the FEMA 100year flow value for Elam Creek at the Kmart-Kroger building site is 4,900 cfs. [Exhibit E at ¶10] 24.

The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by the standard articulated in

Daubert v. Merrell Dow. Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Daubert provides that expert testimony is admissible only upon a showing that the proffered testimony is both relevant and reliable. See 509 U.S. at 589-94. Expert testimony is relevant when it is sufficiently related to the facts of the case so that it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact at issue. See id. Reliability is shown when the testimony is based on scientific methods and procedures. See id. The opinion in Daubert clearly mandates that FED.R.EVID. 702 placed the responsibility of gatekeeper on the trial judge to assess proffered expert testimony and “determine at the outset, pursuant to FED.R.EVID. 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact.” See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592. This Court must fulfill a vital gatekeeping role that requires it to make a threshold assessment of “whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the [expert] testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning and methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-93.

8

According to Monohan, “Mr. Krewson’s failure to obtain and utilize the original HEC-2 model, which contains the FEMA 100-year peak flow for Elam Creek at Kmart, further suggests a lack of experience in working with FEMA Flood studies.” [Exhibit E at ¶12]

12


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 13 of 22 PageID #: 5155

25.

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires a sound basis and a sound methodology,

properly applied to the facts of the case, before an opinion can be admitted into evidence: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliability applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Thus, courts must exclude expert evidence that is not “based on sufficient facts or data,” that is not “the product of reliable principles and methods,” or whose methods are not applied “reliably to the facts of the case.” See id. “[A]ny step that renders the analysis unreliable . . . renders the expert’s testimony inadmissible. This is true whether the step completely changes a reliable methodology or merely misapplies that methodology.” FED.R.EVID. 702 advisory committee’s note (2000)(quoting In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 745 (3d Cir. 1994))(emphasis and omission in original). The trial court’s gatekeeping function requires more than simply “taking the expert’s word for it.” See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1319 (9th Cir. 1995)(“We’ve been presented with only the experts’ qualifications, their conclusions and their assurances of reliability. Under Daubert, that’s not enough.”). 26.

Kmart complains that Monohan’s opinions regarding flow rates should be

excluded because “Monohan relies on incorrect flow data.” [Doc. No. 264 at 1] Implicit in this contention is that Kmart, presumably through its proposed expert, Krewson, is now aware of the

13


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 14 of 22 PageID #: 5156

“correct” flow rate for the comparative HEC-RAS model that he performed.9

However, it is

clear that is not the case. Kmart now says that the flow rate for a 100-year event, i.e. the allegedly “correct” flow rate, is 5,202 cfs, which has been calculated by adding the flow rate of 3,702 cfs for Elam Creek at US Highway 45 to the flow rate of 1,500 cfs for Turner Creek at its mouth on Elam Creek, both of which were taken from a table in FEMA’s Flood Insurance Study which sets for a summary of peak discharges for various flood events at a few select locations in and around Corinth. [Doc. No. 264 at 2 n. 5] Kmart has offered no explanation to support the proposition that it is permissible to simply add these two discharge values together. Indeed, it is not permissible to simply add those two values together, and therefore, Kmart’s Motion should fail because it is premised on an inaccurate factual assumption. As explained by Monohan, who is the only proposed expert that is a certified floodplain manager, “[i]n accordance with sound engineering and hydrologic practices, peak flows on tributary streams typically can’t be added together because the flood peaks occur at different times.” [Exhibit E at ¶ 10] 27.

Kmart’s argument, assuming that it was valid, would apply equally to its own

proposed expert Krewson. Based on testimony from Monohan’s deposition, Kmart complains that Monohan “admits that he does not even know the correct flow data” and that for this reason his testimony concerning flow rates should be excluded. [Doc. 264 at 1, 6-7] However, in making this contention, Kmart overlooks the fact that its own proposed expert was unable to identify the “correct” flow rate, i.e. the 100-year flow rate, during his deposition. Krewson was asked about the inconsistent flow rates used in the runs that he performed with the HEC-RAS

9

During Krewson’s deposition, he was not able to identify which of the inconsistent flow rates used in his HECRAS runs was the “correct” one: “I’m not sure which number is right, but, yes, there’s a conflict.” [Exhibit B at 117]

14


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 15 of 22 PageID #: 5157

software, and he readily admitted that he did not know which of the rates was the “correct” one: “I’m not sure which number is right, but, yes, there’s a conflict.” [Exhibit B at 117] 28.

If the Court concludes that Monohan should not be permitted to testify regarding

flow rates, based on testimony during his deposition which Kmart claims shows that he did not know the “correct” flow rate, then Krewson should not be permitted to testify as to the results of his HEC-RAS model, based on testimony during his deposition which shows that he did not know the “correct” flow rate either. 29.

Kmart contends that Monohan’s testimony regarding flow rates should be

excluded because he performed no computer modeling. [Doc . No. 264 at 1] However, this argument reflects a lack of basic, fundamental knowledge in hydrology and suggests a lack of experience in working with FEMA flood studies, because Monohan’s opinions regarding flow rates require no modeling. 30.

Even if one were to assume – solely for the sake of argument – that it was

appropriate to use the FEMA 100-year flow rate for Krewson’s evaluation, “no modeling would be necessary for [Monohan] to determine the peak flow rate for the property made the subject of this litigation,” because “[i]t can be found in the HEC-2 computer code for the May 1979 study of Elam Creek.” [Exhibit E at ¶ 9] This data is still the effective FEMA model for Elam Creek, and the FEMA Flood Insurance Study on which Krewson relied in selecting flow rate values is based on that data from 1979. [See Exhibit E at ¶ 9] While Krewson testified that he could not find this data,10 see Krewson Depo. at 239, it “is still available from the FEMA Library and was included as Appendix I in [Monohan’s] expert report.” [Exhibit E at ¶ 9] As indicated by the

10

According to Monohan, “Mr. Krewson’s failure to obtain and utilize the original HEC-2 model, which contains the FEMA 100-year peak flow for Elam Creek at Kmart, further suggests a lack of experience in working with FEMA Flood studies.” [Exhibit E at ¶12]

15


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 16 of 22 PageID #: 5158

HEC-2 computer code for the May 1979 study of Elam Creek, the FEMA 100-year flow value for Elam Creek at the Kmart-Kroger building site is 4,900 cfs. [Exhibit E at ¶10] FEMA did the modeling necessary to determine this flow rate over thirty years ago and still relies on the results of that modeling today. One needs only to look up the figure in the HEC-2 computer code for the May 1979 study of Elam Creek; no modeling is necessary. Consequently, Kmart’s Motion should be denied because it is unnecessary for Monohan to perform any modeling to identify the 100-year flow value for Elam Creek at the Kmart-Kroger building site and because his opinions are amply supported by the record and Monohan’s training, education, and experience. 31.

Kmart relies upon Coffey v. Dowley Manufacturing, Inc., 187 F.Supp.2d 958

(M.D.Tenn. 2002), in arguing that Monohan’s opinions regarding flow rates should be excluded. However, even a cursory examination of the facts and the analysis used by the court in Coffey shows that it does not support Kmart’s argument; in fact, Coffey tends to support the argument that Krewson’s opinions should be excluded. Kmart asserts that the court in Coffey excluded an expert’s testimony because it did not rest upon sufficient facts and data, based on the court’s determination that the expert’s analysis was based on hypothesized “guesstimations” regarding a number of important variables and evidence that more than one parameter assumed by the expert was incorrect or speculative. [Doc. No. 264 at 8-9] However, it is not Monohan who has engaged in “guesstimations”; rather, it is Kmart’s own proposed expert that has done so. 32.

Krewson testified that he was “trying to do a comparative model” and that his

opinion doesn’t relate to what actually happened on May 2, 2010 and was never intended to recreate those events. [Exhibit B at 229-30] Krewson admits that his model was intended to create a “hypothetical comparison.” [Exhibit B at 230] Krewson utilized the 100-year rainfall event in

16


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 17 of 22 PageID #: 5159

connection with his hypothetical comparison based on his assumption that the “area received an amount [of rain] that appeared to approach the 100-year rainfall event.” [Exhibit B at 230-31] 33.

Monohan rejects Krewson’s entire hypothesized approach and his use of

estimations of rainfall utilized in Krewson’s model. [Exhibit F at 5] Monohan states in his report that “the flow data should have been refined to as close as practicable [to] replicate the peak flood flow that actually occurred on Elam Creek on May 2, 2010, along the modeled reach.” [Exhibit F at 5] Monohan explains that Krewson, in his September 20, 2012 report, attempts to use the FEMA 100-year recurrence interval flow value for his HEC-RAS evaluations but provides no evidence that the flood event of May 2, 2010 on Elam Creek at the Kmart location approximated this discharge value. [Exhibit E at ¶ 4] Such evidence is necessary and would have been found in the form of high water marks along the section of Elam Creek that was the focus of Krewson’s modeling. [Exhibit E at ¶ 4] This evidence could have been collected by Krewson during his visits to the site shortly after the flood at issue occurred. [Exhibit E at ¶ 4] According to Monohan, Krewson should have used high water mark evidence to verify that the flood discharge values he chose for his HEC-RAS model of Elam Creek, with all significant physical obstructions such as bridges represented therein, actually reproduced the flood elevations experienced during the May 2, 2010 flood event. [Exhibit E at ¶ 5] Without this verification, Monohan observes that Krewson’s model results are unreliable. [Exhibit E at ¶ 5] 34.

Consequently, Coffey lends no support to Kmart’s argument that Monohan’s

opinions regarding flow rates should be excluded. Instead, it tends to support the Defendants’ argument that Krewson’s opinions should be excluded. 35.

In support of its Motion, Kmart asserts that “[t]his Court recently granted leave

for Mr. Krewson to correct the mathematical errors in his report,” citing this Court’s Order of 17


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 18 of 22 PageID #: 5160

September 27, 2013, see Doc. No. 243, and states further that “this Court has allowed Mr. Krewson to correct these inadvertent inconsistencies.” [Doc. No. 264 at 2-3, 6] However, the Order of September 27 does not grant such leave; instead, the Order states that “the Court will consider an amendment of mathematical errors only.” [Doc. No. 243 at 1] The Order clearly contemplates the submission of a proposed amendment which the Court may or may not allow: “In the event the Court allows any modification of the expert report, the Court acknowledges that a continuance of certain pretrial and trial settings might become appropriate.” [Doc. No. 243 at 1] Kmart’s misstatement of the September 27 Order provides no support for its Motion as to Monohan. 36.

Kmart argues that the “Court does not need an expert to point out inconsistent

data” and that, “[t]herefore, Mr. Monohan’s testimony on this issue is unnecessary in the first place.” [Doc. No. 264 at 7] Kmart fails to explain, however, how a lay person would locate and then determine the impact of those inconsistencies on Krewson’s opinions. As explained by Monohan, the inconsistent flow rate values were not easily detectable in Krewson’s September 20, 2012 report. [Exhibit E at ¶ 8] Those inconsistent values were only discovered through a “careful examination of the HEC-RAS computer code” by Monohan and would not have been found otherwise. [Exhibit E at ¶ 8] In Monohan’s opinion, the average lay person would not be able to locate the inconsistencies that he found and would also not be able to explain the impact of the inconsistencies as they relate to generating reliable results within the bounds of sound engineering practices from the HEC-RAS program. [Exhibit E at ¶ 8] Consequently, the only evidence before the Court strongly indicates that expert testimony regarding the Krewson’s inconsistent flow rates is necessary and entirely relevant.

18


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 19 of 22 PageID #: 5161

37.

For the reasons set forth herein, and as further set forth in Defendants’ supporting

memorandum which is contemporaneously-filed herewith and incorporated herein by reference, Kmart’s Motion should be denied. 38.

In support of their Response, Defendants rely upon the pleadings filed in this

action, their supporting memorandum, and the following exhibits: Exhibit A:

Letter of Map Revision from FEMA.

Exhibit B:

Excerpts of Deposition of John R. Krewson.

Exhibit C:

Flooding Evaluation by John R. Krewson.

Exhibit D:

Plaintiff’s Responses to The Kroger Co.’s First Set of Interrogatories.

Exhibit E:

Affidavit of James N. Monohan, P.E., C.F.M.

Exhibit F:

Expert Review and Report on Mr. John R. Krewson’s Flooding Evaluation (dated September 20, 2012) and Deposition (dated May 22, 2013).

Exhibit G:

Excerpts of Deposition of James N. Monohan, P.E., C.F.M.

THIS, the 1st day of November 2013. Respectfully submitted, THE KROGER CO. By: s/ David A. Norris Of Counsel Edley H. Jones III (MSB No. 3201) David A. Norris (MSB No. 100616) McGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC City Center South, Suite 1100 200 South Lamar Street (Zip - 39201) Post Office Drawer 22949 Jackson, Mississippi 39225-2949 Telephone: (769) 524-2314 Facsimile: (769) 524-2333 dnorris@mcglinchey.com; ejones@mcglinchey.com 19


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 20 of 22 PageID #: 5162

E&A SOUTHEAST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

By: s/ Mary Clift Abdalla Of Counsel Mary Clift Abdalla (MSB No. 102734) Walter Garner Watkins, III (MSB No. 100314) Walter Garner Watkins, Jr. (MSB No. 6988) Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy LLP 200 South Lamar Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8600 Facsimile: (601) 960-8613 abdallamc@fpwk.com trey@fpwk.com wwatkins@fpwk.com FULTON IMPROVEMENTS, LLC

By: s/ Jamie F. Jacks Of Counsel Jamie F. Jacks (MSB No. 101881) Gerald H. Jacks JACKS LUCIANO, P.A. P.O. Box 1209 Cleveland, Mississippi 38732 Telephone: (662) 843-6171 Facsimile: (662) 843-6176 jjacks@jlpalaw.com gjacks@jlpalaw.com

20


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 21 of 22 PageID #: 5163

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned David A. Norris, McGlinchey Stafford PLLC, hereby certify that on this day, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to the following: Ryan O. Lumainis James M. Garner John T. Balhoff, II SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, LLC 909 Poydras Street, 28th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 Email: rluminais@shergarner.com Mary Clift Abdalla FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, PLLC 200 S. Lamar Street, Suite 100 Jackson, MS 39201 Email: abdallamc@fpwk.com Walter G. Watkins , Jr. FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, PLLC P.O. Box 22608 Jackson, MS 39225-2608 Email: wwatkins@fpwk.com Walter Garner Watkins , III FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, PLLC P.O. Box 22608 Jackson, MS 39225-2608 Email: trey@fpwk.com Gerald Haggart Jacks JACKS LUCIANO, P.A. P. O. Box 1209 Cleveland, MS 38732-1209 Email: gjacks@jlpalaw.com Jamie Ferguson Jacks JACKS LUCIANO, P.A. P. O. Box 1209 Cleveland, MS 38732-1209 Email: jjacks@jlpalaw.com 21


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301 Filed: 11/01/13 22 of 22 PageID #: 5164

Charles E. Ross WISE, CARTER, CHILD & CARAWAY P. O. Box 651 Jackson, MS 39205-0651 Email: cer@wisecarter.com Terry Dwayne Little DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL - Oxford P.O. Box 1396 Oxford, MS 38655 Email: tlittle@danielcoker.com Wilton V. Byars , III DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL P.O. Box 1396 Oxford, MS 38655 Email: wbyars@danielcoker.com John Evans Gough , Jr. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE - Oxford 900 Jefferson Avenue Oxford, MS 38655-3608 Email: john.gough@usdoj.gov Linda F. Cooper WISE CARTER CHILD & CARAWAY, P.A. P.O. Box 651 Jackson, MS 39205-0651 and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the following non-ECF participants: None THIS, the 1st day of November 2013.

s/ David A. Norris David A. Norris

276220.2

22


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-1 Filed: 11/01/13 1 of 2 PageID #: 5165


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-1 Filed: 11/01/13 2 of 2 PageID #: 5166


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 1 of 85 PageID #: 5167


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 2 of 85 PageID #: 5168


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 3 of 85 PageID #: 5169


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 4 of 85 PageID #: 5170


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 5 of 85 PageID #: 5171


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 6 of 85 PageID #: 5172


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 7 of 85 PageID #: 5173


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 8 of 85 PageID #: 5174


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 9 of 85 PageID #: 5175


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 10 of 85 PageID #: 5176


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 11 of 85 PageID #: 5177


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 12 of 85 PageID #: 5178


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 13 of 85 PageID #: 5179


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 14 of 85 PageID #: 5180


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 15 of 85 PageID #: 5181


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 16 of 85 PageID #: 5182


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 17 of 85 PageID #: 5183


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 18 of 85 PageID #: 5184


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 19 of 85 PageID #: 5185


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 20 of 85 PageID #: 5186


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 21 of 85 PageID #: 5187


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 22 of 85 PageID #: 5188


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 23 of 85 PageID #: 5189


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 24 of 85 PageID #: 5190


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 25 of 85 PageID #: 5191


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 26 of 85 PageID #: 5192


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 27 of 85 PageID #: 5193


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 28 of 85 PageID #: 5194


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 29 of 85 PageID #: 5195


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 30 of 85 PageID #: 5196


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 31 of 85 PageID #: 5197


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 32 of 85 PageID #: 5198


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 33 of 85 PageID #: 5199


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 34 of 85 PageID #: 5200


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 35 of 85 PageID #: 5201


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 36 of 85 PageID #: 5202


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 37 of 85 PageID #: 5203


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 38 of 85 PageID #: 5204


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 39 of 85 PageID #: 5205


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 40 of 85 PageID #: 5206


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 41 of 85 PageID #: 5207


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 42 of 85 PageID #: 5208


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 43 of 85 PageID #: 5209


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 44 of 85 PageID #: 5210


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 45 of 85 PageID #: 5211


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 46 of 85 PageID #: 5212


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 47 of 85 PageID #: 5213


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 48 of 85 PageID #: 5214


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 49 of 85 PageID #: 5215


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 50 of 85 PageID #: 5216


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 51 of 85 PageID #: 5217


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 52 of 85 PageID #: 5218


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 53 of 85 PageID #: 5219


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 54 of 85 PageID #: 5220


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 55 of 85 PageID #: 5221


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 56 of 85 PageID #: 5222


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 57 of 85 PageID #: 5223


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 58 of 85 PageID #: 5224


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 59 of 85 PageID #: 5225


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 60 of 85 PageID #: 5226


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 61 of 85 PageID #: 5227


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 62 of 85 PageID #: 5228


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 63 of 85 PageID #: 5229


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 64 of 85 PageID #: 5230


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 65 of 85 PageID #: 5231


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 66 of 85 PageID #: 5232


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 67 of 85 PageID #: 5233


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 68 of 85 PageID #: 5234


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 69 of 85 PageID #: 5235


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 70 of 85 PageID #: 5236


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 71 of 85 PageID #: 5237


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 72 of 85 PageID #: 5238


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 73 of 85 PageID #: 5239


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 74 of 85 PageID #: 5240


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 75 of 85 PageID #: 5241


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 76 of 85 PageID #: 5242


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 77 of 85 PageID #: 5243


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 78 of 85 PageID #: 5244


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 79 of 85 PageID #: 5245


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 80 of 85 PageID #: 5246


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 81 of 85 PageID #: 5247


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 82 of 85 PageID #: 5248


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 83 of 85 PageID #: 5249


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 84 of 85 PageID #: 5250


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-2 Filed: 11/01/13 85 of 85 PageID #: 5251


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 1 of 23 PageID #: 5252


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 2 of 23 PageID #: 5253


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 3 of 23 PageID #: 5254


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 4 of 23 PageID #: 5255


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 5 of 23 PageID #: 5256


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 6 of 23 PageID #: 5257


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 7 of 23 PageID #: 5258


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 8 of 23 PageID #: 5259


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 9 of 23 PageID #: 5260


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 10 of 23 PageID #: 5261


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 11 of 23 PageID #: 5262


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 12 of 23 PageID #: 5263


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 13 of 23 PageID #: 5264


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 14 of 23 PageID #: 5265


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 15 of 23 PageID #: 5266


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 16 of 23 PageID #: 5267


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 17 of 23 PageID #: 5268


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 18 of 23 PageID #: 5269


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 19 of 23 PageID #: 5270


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 20 of 23 PageID #: 5271


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 21 of 23 PageID #: 5272


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 22 of 23 PageID #: 5273


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-3 Filed: 11/01/13 23 of 23 PageID #: 5274


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 1 of 25 PageID #: 5275


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 2 of 25 PageID #: 5276


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 3 of 25 PageID #: 5277


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 4 of 25 PageID #: 5278


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 5 of 25 PageID #: 5279


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 6 of 25 PageID #: 5280


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 7 of 25 PageID #: 5281


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 8 of 25 PageID #: 5282


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 9 of 25 PageID #: 5283


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 10 of 25 PageID #: 5284


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 11 of 25 PageID #: 5285


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 12 of 25 PageID #: 5286


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 13 of 25 PageID #: 5287


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 14 of 25 PageID #: 5288


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 15 of 25 PageID #: 5289


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 16 of 25 PageID #: 5290


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 17 of 25 PageID #: 5291


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 18 of 25 PageID #: 5292


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 19 of 25 PageID #: 5293


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 20 of 25 PageID #: 5294


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 21 of 25 PageID #: 5295


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 22 of 25 PageID #: 5296


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 23 of 25 PageID #: 5297


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 24 of 25 PageID #: 5298


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-4 Filed: 11/01/13 25 of 25 PageID #: 5299


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-5 Filed: 11/01/13 1 of 13 PageID #: 5300


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-5 Filed: 11/01/13 2 of 13 PageID #: 5301


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-5 Filed: 11/01/13 3 of 13 PageID #: 5302


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-5 Filed: 11/01/13 4 of 13 PageID #: 5303


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-5 Filed: 11/01/13 5 of 13 PageID #: 5304


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-5 Filed: 11/01/13 6 of 13 PageID #: 5305


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-5 Filed: 11/01/13 7 of 13 PageID #: 5306


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-5 Filed: 11/01/13 8 of 13 PageID #: 5307


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-5 Filed: 11/01/13 9 of 13 PageID #: 5308


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-5 Filed: 11/01/13 10 of 13 PageID #: 5309


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-5 Filed: 11/01/13 11 of 13 PageID #: 5310


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-5 Filed: 11/01/13 12 of 13 PageID #: 5311


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-5 Filed: 11/01/13 13 of 13 PageID #: 5312


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 1 of 108 PageID #: 5313


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 2 of 108 PageID #: 5314


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 3 of 108 PageID #: 5315


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 4 of 108 PageID #: 5316


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 5 of 108 PageID #: 5317


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 6 of 108 PageID #: 5318


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 7 of 108 PageID #: 5319


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 8 of 108 PageID #: 5320


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 9 of 108 PageID #: 5321


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 10 of 108 PageID #: 5322


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 11 of 108 PageID #: 5323


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 12 of 108 PageID #: 5324


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 13 of 108 PageID #: 5325


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 14 of 108 PageID #: 5326


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 15 of 108 PageID #: 5327


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 16 of 108 PageID #: 5328


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 17 of 108 PageID #: 5329


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 18 of 108 PageID #: 5330


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 19 of 108 PageID #: 5331


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 20 of 108 PageID #: 5332


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 21 of 108 PageID #: 5333


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 22 of 108 PageID #: 5334


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 23 of 108 PageID #: 5335


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 24 of 108 PageID #: 5336


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 25 of 108 PageID #: 5337


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 26 of 108 PageID #: 5338


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 27 of 108 PageID #: 5339


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 28 of 108 PageID #: 5340


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 29 of 108 PageID #: 5341


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 30 of 108 PageID #: 5342


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 31 of 108 PageID #: 5343


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 32 of 108 PageID #: 5344


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 33 of 108 PageID #: 5345


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 34 of 108 PageID #: 5346


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 35 of 108 PageID #: 5347


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 36 of 108 PageID #: 5348


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 37 of 108 PageID #: 5349


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 38 of 108 PageID #: 5350


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 39 of 108 PageID #: 5351


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 40 of 108 PageID #: 5352


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 41 of 108 PageID #: 5353


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 42 of 108 PageID #: 5354


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 43 of 108 PageID #: 5355


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 44 of 108 PageID #: 5356


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 45 of 108 PageID #: 5357


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 46 of 108 PageID #: 5358


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 47 of 108 PageID #: 5359


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 48 of 108 PageID #: 5360


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 49 of 108 PageID #: 5361


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 50 of 108 PageID #: 5362


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 51 of 108 PageID #: 5363


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 52 of 108 PageID #: 5364


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 53 of 108 PageID #: 5365


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 54 of 108 PageID #: 5366


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 55 of 108 PageID #: 5367


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 56 of 108 PageID #: 5368


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 57 of 108 PageID #: 5369


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 58 of 108 PageID #: 5370


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 59 of 108 PageID #: 5371


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 60 of 108 PageID #: 5372


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 61 of 108 PageID #: 5373


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 62 of 108 PageID #: 5374


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 63 of 108 PageID #: 5375


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 64 of 108 PageID #: 5376


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 65 of 108 PageID #: 5377


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 66 of 108 PageID #: 5378


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 67 of 108 PageID #: 5379


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 68 of 108 PageID #: 5380


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 69 of 108 PageID #: 5381


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 70 of 108 PageID #: 5382


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 71 of 108 PageID #: 5383


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 72 of 108 PageID #: 5384


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 73 of 108 PageID #: 5385


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 74 of 108 PageID #: 5386


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 75 of 108 PageID #: 5387


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 76 of 108 PageID #: 5388


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 77 of 108 PageID #: 5389


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 78 of 108 PageID #: 5390


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 79 of 108 PageID #: 5391


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 80 of 108 PageID #: 5392


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 81 of 108 PageID #: 5393


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 82 of 108 PageID #: 5394


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 83 of 108 PageID #: 5395


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 84 of 108 PageID #: 5396


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 85 of 108 PageID #: 5397


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 86 of 108 PageID #: 5398


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 87 of 108 PageID #: 5399


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 88 of 108 PageID #: 5400


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 89 of 108 PageID #: 5401


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 90 of 108 PageID #: 5402


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 91 of 108 PageID #: 5403


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 92 of 108 PageID #: 5404


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 93 of 108 PageID #: 5405


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 94 of 108 PageID #: 5406


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 95 of 108 PageID #: 5407


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 96 of 108 PageID #: 5408


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 97 of 108 PageID #: 5409


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 98 of 108 PageID #: 5410


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 99 of 108 PageID #: 5411


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 100 of 108 PageID #: 5412


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 101 of 108 PageID #: 5413


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 102 of 108 PageID #: 5414


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 103 of 108 PageID #: 5415


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 104 of 108 PageID #: 5416


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 105 of 108 PageID #: 5417


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 106 of 108 PageID #: 5418


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 107 of 108 PageID #: 5419


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-6 Filed: 11/01/13 108 of 108 PageID #: 5420


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-7 Filed: 11/01/13 1 of 3 PageID #: 5421


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-7 Filed: 11/01/13 2 of 3 PageID #: 5422


Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 301-7 Filed: 11/01/13 3 of 3 PageID #: 5423


301 responsetomotiontoexcludetestimonyjamesmonohan kroger e&a fulton combine