333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

84
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION KMART CORPORATION, Plaintiff As CIV. ACT. NO. 1:11-CV-103-GHD-DAS versus THE KROGER CO., et al. Defendants REBUTTAL TO RESPONSE TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF ROBERT ELEY May It Please The Court: Plaintiff, Kmart Corporation, submits this Rebuttal to the Response to Kmart’s Motion in limine to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of Robert Eley, the purported expert witness jointly retained by Defendants, Fulton Improvements, LLC, E&A Southeast Limited Partnership, and The Kroger Co. (collectively “Defendants”). Mr. Eley’s anticipated testimony that “no amount of caulking, waterproofing or protective membrane would have prevented water from entering the Kmart building during the flood event,” should be excluded or limited because, by his own 1 admissions, he has no training or knowledge regarding at least one floodproofing measure (flood- proof or watertight doors) suggested by Kmart and its expert, John R. Krewson. Mr. Eley’s broad assertion that no floodproofing measure would have prevented water from entering the Kmart building is, therefore, baseless and devoid of supporting data. Moreover, Mr. Eley’s testimony that “the City of Corinth correctly interpreted the pre-construction site survey data (Existing Conditions Plan), compared this data to the 1981 FIRM maps and properly concluded that the 1981 Flood Maps See Robert Eley’s Expert Report (June 22, 2013), attached as Exhibit “A,” at 3. 1 Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 1 of 14 PageID #: 6303

Upload: milton-sandy

Post on 18-Mar-2016

240 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

 

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

ABERDEEN DIVISION

KMART CORPORATION,

PlaintiffAs CIV. ACT. NO. 1:11-CV-103-GHD-DAS

versus

THE KROGER CO., et al.

Defendants

REBUTTAL TO RESPONSE TO MOTION IN LIMINETO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF ROBERT ELEY

May It Please The Court:

Plaintiff, Kmart Corporation, submits this Rebuttal to the Response to Kmart’s Motion in

limine to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of Robert Eley, the purported expert witness jointly

retained by Defendants, Fulton Improvements, LLC, E&A Southeast Limited Partnership, and The

Kroger Co. (collectively “Defendants”). Mr. Eley’s anticipated testimony that “no amount of

caulking, waterproofing or protective membrane would have prevented water from entering the

Kmart building during the flood event,” should be excluded or limited because, by his own1

admissions, he has no training or knowledge regarding at least one floodproofing measure (flood-

proof or watertight doors) suggested by Kmart and its expert, John R. Krewson. Mr. Eley’s broad

assertion that no floodproofing measure would have prevented water from entering the Kmart

building is, therefore, baseless and devoid of supporting data. Moreover, Mr. Eley’s testimony that

“the City of Corinth correctly interpreted the pre-construction site survey data (Existing Conditions

Plan), compared this data to the 1981 FIRM maps and properly concluded that the 1981 Flood Maps

See Robert Eley’s Expert Report (June 22, 2013), attached as Exhibit “A,” at 3.1

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 1 of 14 PageID #: 6303

Page 2: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

were incorrect, or inconsistent with the existing conditions on the ground at this location” should2

be excluded or limited because it constitutes a legal conclusion that impermissibly instructs the jury

on which conclusions to reach in this matter.

I. Law and Argument

A. This Court should disregard those portions of Defendants’ Response regardingthe admissibility of the testimony of Kmart’s expert, Mr. John R. Krewson.

While this motion deals exclusively with the testimony of Mr. Eley, Defendants devote

several paragraphs of their Opposition arguing that Kmart’s expert, John R. Krewson, should be

excluded. Defendants previously devoted over seventy-five pages to the admissibility of Mr.3

Krewson’s testimony by filing separate motions to exclude his testimony. But the admissibility of

Mr. Krewson’s testimony is not at issue in this motion and should not be considered as part of this

motion. Defendant’s discussion of the admissibility of Mr. Krewson’s testimony is merely an

attempt to distract this Court from the fact that the opinion of their expert, Mr. Eley, is unqualified

and based on insufficient and unreliable information. The admissibility of Mr. Krewson’s testimony

has already been briefed in prior motion practice and, to the extent that Defendants now argue this

point, Kmart refers this court to its Omnibus Response in Opposition to the Motions to Exclude the

Opinions of John R. Krewson filed by Kmart. 4

Id.2

See Doc. 300 at pp. 4, 6, 7. 3

See Doc. 321. 4

2

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 2 of 14 PageID #: 6304

Page 3: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

B. Mr. Eley’s testimony that no amount of flooding proofing measures would haveprevented the flooding at Kmart’s store should be excluded because Mr. Eleyis not qualified to offer the opinion and the opinion is based on insufficientinformation.

Defendants essentially argue that Mr. Eley’s testimony that no amount of floodproofing

would have prevented the flooding at Kmart is admissible because it is based on his experience as

a project engineer for residential and commercial development and as a civil engineer for residential

and commercial design projects. The sole basis for Mr. Eley’s opinion is his alleged experience, as

demonstrated by Mr. Eley’s testimony:

Q: Okay. Paragraph 3 says, “It is my opinion that no amount of caulking,waterproofing, or protective membrane would have prevented water from entering the Kmart building during the flood event. Did I read that correctly?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What is that opinion based on?

A: Thirty-five years of experience.

Q: Okay.

A: And an engineering degree.5

Yet despite his alleged experience, Mr. Eley admitted that he has no knowledge regarding all

available sources of flood protection measures and thus he cannot reliably state that no flood

prevention measures would have prevented the flooding at Kmart’s store.

In particular, Mr. Eley admitted that he had no knowledge regarding flood-proof doors or

barriers, an example provided by Kmart and Mr. Krewson of a potential flood protection measure

See Deposition of Robert Eley (September 6, 2013), attached as Exhibit “B,” at p. 96, ll. 10-19.5

3

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 3 of 14 PageID #: 6305

Page 4: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

that could have been taken to prevent flooding at Kmart’s store. At least one month prior to the6

Defendants’ expert designation deadline, both Defendants and Mr. Eley were aware that a flood-

proof door or barrier system was one of several options proposed by Kmart and Mr. Krewson as a

potential flood protection measure. On May 20, 2013, Kmart responded to Interrogatories

propounded by Fulton regarding the flood protection measures that should have been taken by Fulton

to protect Kmart from flooding during the May 2, 2010 storm and stated as follows:

Fulton had an obligation under its lease with Kmart to keep Kmart’s leased premisesin a safe, dry, and tenantable condition. Fulton failed to take any necessary measureto protect Kmart’s store and to maintain a safe, dry, and tenantable condition asrequired under the lease, which caused the store to suffer flood damages as a resultof the May 2, 2010 rain event. It was up to Kmart’s landlord, and not up to Kmart,to take these measures. The “protective membrane” referenced in Kmart’sComplaint was only one such protective measure that could have been adopted byKmart’s landlord to keep the Kmart building in a safe, dry and tenantable conditionduring the May 2, 2010 flood. Nevertheless, by way of illustration only, Fultoncould have used a silicone sealant around the base of the building. Fulton also couldhave provided a flood boot system as an extension of the outer wall of the Kmartstore that hermetically seals in front of the building entry. Fulton also could haveprovided a water detention system so that flood water was adequately diverted to adetention pond and away from the Kmart building. Fulton could have maintained adrainage system at the site so that water was adequately drained away from Kmart’sproperty. 7

Then, on May 22, 2013, Mr. Krewson testified regarding flood-proof doors and barriers as a potential

flood prevention measure that could have been taken at Kmart’s store to prevent the flooding that

occurred after the May 2, 2010 event. Mr. Eley was present at Mr. Krewson’s deposition, where he

testified as follows:

Q: Are you suggesting that - - Well, let me rephrase that. How would thatcaulking and waterproof be put on the building, whatever the surface was?

Id., p. 98, ll. 2-21 and p. 107, ll. 19-21.6

See Kmart’s Response to Fulton’s Interrogatory No. 11, attached as Exhibit “C” (emphasis added).7

4

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 4 of 14 PageID #: 6306

Page 5: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

A: Well, caulk around windows, caulk around the openings, have to caulkaround anything where water could enter, obviously. And somehow oranother, you have to waterproof the wall, either with a waterproof sealant orusing a physical barrier on the exterior of the wall.

Q: How do you waterproof doors which are busted open by landscape timbersallowing the water to enter? How do you waterproof against that?

A: Well, there’s a commercial product, in fact, there are a number of companiesI think that do flood waterproofing. And the system that Sears Kmart hasused is a barrier that is removable and can be put in place with severaltechniques. Some are mechanically operated, and they can be closedelectronically. Some you have to - - the staff has to come out and actuallyplace the barrier.

Q: Where are the barriers located?

A: It fits across the front of the door on the exterior of the door.

Q: And you say Sears and Kmart have used those barriers?

A: Yes. 8

Mr. Krewson further explained that this same type of flood protection system could be

extended around the entire building:

Q: All right. And you talk about this protective membrane. Tell me in more, inMr. Balhoff’s term, in layman’s language what you mean by a protectivemembrane.

A: Well, I mean, you can extend - - Well, there are systems where you can putout an inflatable. Actually, you fill it up with water around the perimeter ofthe building. It’s kind of extreme, but you can do that where you actuallypump water in it and create a water enclosure around the building to protectthe building.

I’ve never seen them when they didn’t - - weren’t able to protect the wallswithout a membrane, but you can also extend the barrier system around thebuilding.

See Deposition of John R. Krewson (May 22, 2013), attached as Exhibit “D,” p. 119, l. 23 - p. 120,8

l. 23.

5

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 5 of 14 PageID #: 6307

Page 6: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Q: What do you mean a barrier system?

A: The same system that’s used at the doors can be continued all the way aroundthe building.9

Mr. Eley’s report is dated June 22, 2013 and the extended expert designation deadline for the

Defendants was June 28, 2013. Thus, Mr. Eley had at least one month to consider Kmart’s discovery

responses and Mr. Krewson’s testimony regarding the flood-proof doors and barriers, conduct

research on the flood-proof doors and barriers, and then render an educated opinion. But Mr. Eley

ignored this flood protection measure completely, and instead relied only on his alleged experience

to make the generalized conclusion that no amount of flood protection measure would have

prevented the flooding at Kmart’s store. Mr. Eley rendered this opinion despite the fact that he had

no knowledge, and made no attempt to gain any knowledge, regarding the flood-proof door or barrier

systems proposed by Kmart and Mr. Krewson as potential flood-protection measures.

Defendants also complain that Mr. Krewson did not mention flood-proof doors in his Initial

Flooding Evaluation dated September 20, 2012. But Mr. Krewson’s report provided an illustrative,

not exclusive, list of potential flood protection measures that could have been taken to protect the

Kmart building from flooding. Mr. Krewson stated in his report: “Despite the location of the

building in a large and documented floodplain, no actions such as caulking and waterproofing the

exterior walls, or construction of a protective membrane around the building were done to protect

the building.” Mr. Krewson was not providing an exclusive list of available flood protection10

measures, but rather pointing out that there were no flood protection measures taken, such as

Id., p. 122, ll. 4-21.9

See Initial Flooding Evaluation of John R. Krewson (September 20, 2012), attached as Exhibit “E,”10

at 8.

6

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 6 of 14 PageID #: 6308

Page 7: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

caulking, waterproofing the exterior walls, or construction of a protective membrane, to prevent the

flooding at Kmart’s store. Additionally, as discussed above, the flood-proof doors and barriers11

were discussed in Kmart’s discovery responses and at Mr. Krewson’s deposition and Mr. Eley had

sufficient time to research the potential effectiveness of these flood protection systems.

Further, just as in the O’Hara v. Travelers case, there is simply no reliable basis for Mr.12

Eley’s opinion and it should be excluded. Mr. Eley’s alleged experience is not, by itself, a sufficient

basis for Mr. Eley to opine that no flood proofing method or special door would have prevented the

flooding at Kmart’s store, particularly when Mr. Eley admitted that he was not knowledgeable about

all available flood prevention measures. Contrary to Defendants’ argument, Mr. Eley must be

familiar with all available types of flood proofing measures if he wants to support his superlative

opinion that no available type of flood proofing measure would have prevented the flooding at

Kmart’s store.

Additionally, the fact that the flooding in Kmart’s store may have approached 22 inches is

not proof that no flood prevention measure would have prevented water from entering Kmart’s store.

Defendants argue that because there were 22 inches of water in Kmart’s store, Mr. Eley did not have

to be familiar with flood-proof doors to render his opinion, but only had to be familiar with the

building construction and the effect of hydrostatic pressure on the building. This argument fails for

several reasons. Mr. Eley did not visit the site nor did he inspect the construction of the Kmart

building and, thus was not familiar with the building construction from this aspect. 13

Id. 11

2012 WL 3062300 (S.D. Miss. July 26, 2012).12

See Ex. C, Depo. of Eley, p. 26, ll. 19-27 and p. 108, ll. 6-13.13

7

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 7 of 14 PageID #: 6309

Page 8: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Additionally, Mr. Eley made no attempt to model or otherwise demonstrate the effect of hydrostatic

pressure on the building when certain flood protection measures, such as the flood-proof doors or

barriers, were in place and thus has no reliable support for this opinion.

Mr. Eley’s testimony that water would have entered through the walls and weep-holes in the

brick is similarly unsupported. Indeed, the testimony of Mr. Krewson and Kmart’s corporate

representative, Mr. Dale Menendez, suggests that a flood barrier above 22 inches could have been

constructed around the entire Kmart building as a flood protection measure. Mr. Krewson testified

that the flood barrier system could have been extended beyond the doors and around an entire

building. Mr. Menendez, testified that these flood-proof barriers could be built well above two14

feet:

But there’s not enough time to always sandbag. Well, then you can boot a building,hermeticallly seal the exterior of the building to height of four foot, two foot, six foot,or whatever is required, and caulk and seal the perimeter

And when the floodwaters - - and you are reaching waters that are coming to floodlevel, you have the Kmart team know that they are in a flood zone, and ask that theyinstall the floodgates. They hook on hinges. You slap them and lock them shut, andit acts as an outer wall and keeps the water outside, so that you’re maintainingdrainage. 15

Mr. Eley does not explain how water, in that instance, would have entered into the building. This

further evidences that Mr. Eley has no support for his opinion that no flood protection measure

would have prevented the flooding at Kmart’s store.

See Ex. E, Depo. of Krewson, p. 122, ll. 4-21. 14

See Deposition of Dale Menendez (July 19, 2013), attached as Exhibit “F,” p. 248, l. 21 - p 249,15

l. 7.

8

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 8 of 14 PageID #: 6310

Page 9: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Mr. Eley is not qualified to express an opinion as to whether any floodproofing measures —

specifically, floodproof doors — would have prevented water from entering the Kmart building. Mr.

Eley conceded that he knows absolutely nothing about floodproof doors, and as such, he cannot

opine that such measures would have been ineffective on May 2, 2010. Moreover, Mr. Eley’s

opinion is not the product of reliable principles and methods and is entirely devoid of supporting

data. Accordingly, this Court should exercise its role as a gatekeeper and enter an order precluding

Mr. Eley from testifying about floodproof doors.

C. Mr. Eley’s opinion regarding the City of Corinth’s conclusions related to the1981 Flood Maps is inadmissible because it is a legal conclusion.

Mr. Eley’s opinion that “the City of Corinth correctly interpreted the pre-construction site

survey data (Existing Conditions Plan), compared this data to the 1981 FIRM maps and properly

concluded that the 1981 Flood Maps were incorrect, or inconsistent with the existing conditions on

the ground at this location” should be excluded or limited because it is a legal conclusion that16

impermissibly instructs the jury on the conclusions to reach in this matter.

Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence indicates that “testimony in the form of an opinion

or inference otherwise inadmissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be

decided by the trier of fact,” but an expert is not permitted to tell the trier of fact, what decision

should be reached. The 1972 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 704 clarifies that this rule does17

not permit any opinion on the ultimate issue to be rendered. As the Advisory Committee Notes

indicate, the provisions of Rules 403, 701, and 702 “afford ample assurances against the admission

See Ex. A, Eley Report at 3.16

FED. R. EVID. 704(a). 17

9

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 9 of 14 PageID #: 6311

Page 10: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

of opinions which would merely tell the jury what result to reach.” “Opinions that provide legal

conclusions are not helpful to the trier of fact and are therefore inadmissible.” 18

Mr. Eley’s opinion should be excluded because he recites what he believes to be the correct

interpretation and proper conclusion by the City of Corinth of the site survey data against the data

from the 1981 map. When questioned about the 1981 FIRM map, which shows that half of the

Kroger store is within a floodway, Mr. Eley testified that the Kroger store was incorrectly included

in the floodway. His observation was based on the construction drawings that were developed for

construction of the Kmart and Kroger stores. Those drawings have the Kroger store outside of a

floodway.

Mr. Eley’s opinion is precisely the kind Rule 704 was intended to avoid. Although Mr. Eley

may be permitted to testify regarding his opinion as to the purported differences in the two sets of

data, he should not be permitted to testify whether the City of Corinth’s interpretation was correct.

The Defendants’ reliance on United States v. Izydore is misplaced. In allowing the bankruptcy19

trustee’s opinion that money was not legally taken, the court noted that the trustee was not testifying

Trinity Yachts, LLC v. Thomas Rutherfoord, Inc., 2013 WL 2406552, *3 (S.D. Miss. May 31,18

2013) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 702; United States v. Izydore, 167 F.3d 213, 218 (5th Cir.1999); see also Petersv. City of Waveland, 2012 WL 1854311, *2 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 20, 2012); BNY Mellon, N.A. v. AffordableHoldings, Inc., 2011 WL 2746301, *2 (N.D. Miss. July 12, 2011) (“[T]o make it abundantly clear [ ], it isaxiomatic that an expert is not permitted to provide legal opinions, legal conclusions, or interpret legal terms;those roles fall solely within the province of the court.”) (quoting Roundout Valley Cent. Sch. Dist. v. ConecoCorp., 321 F. Supp. 2d 469, 480 (N.D.N.Y. 2004); Jones v. Reynolds, 2008 WL 2095679, *12 (N.D. Miss.May 16, 2008) (“To the extent that [the plaintiff’s expert] asserts legal conclusions and conclusions as to theultimate fact, his expert testimony is to be struck.”); Shoemake v. Rental Serv. Corp., 2008 WL 215818, *3(S.D. Miss. Jan. 22, 2008) (finding that the expert’s testimony should be limited to the extent it purports tomake legal conclusions).

167 F. 3d 213 (5th Cir. 1999).19

10

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 10 of 14 PageID #: 6312

Page 11: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

as an expert witness when she made the statement. Moreover, the trustee made the statement while20

discussing her efforts to account for missing money and the court found the opinion was more

accurately described not as whether the appellants were guilty of certain crimes, but whether a

certain sum of money belonged to the appellants in that matter. 21

Here, Mr. Eley is not “simply opining as to how the City of Corinth reached its conclusion

to allow the project to move forward when, at the time of the Kroger construction, the LOMR had

not yet been issued.” Rather, Mr. Eley is offering the legal conclusion for the purpose of telling the

jury what result to reach in this litigation. Kmart has alleged that the Kroger store was improperly

located in a floodway and that Kroger’s presence in the floodway contributed to the flooding at

Kmart’s store. Mr. Eley’s testimony that the City correctly concluded that the 1981 Flood Maps

were incorrect with relation to the location of the Kroger store touches the cause of the flooding at

Kmart’s store and is an improper legal conclusion.

Moreover, Mr. Eley’s opinion is solely based on his alleged experience. Mr. Eley testified:

Q: So you’re saying, that when FEMA and its consultants did a hydraulic study,which Prime Engineering did not do, it didn’t do any type of surveying of thearea to determine the location of the boundaries of the flood map, of thefloodway and floodplain?

A: That’s almost certainly true.

Q: That’s your position?

A: I don’t know it - - almost 100 percent of the time, that would be true.

Q: You don’t have any evidence to support that?

See id. at 218.20

See id.21

11

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 11 of 14 PageID #: 6313

Page 12: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

A: Thirty-five years of experience.

Q: You don’t have any documents to support that?

A: Thirty-five years of practicing engineering and dealing with flood maps andelevations, and I know what the methodology is that goes into producing - - 22

Indeed, Mr. Eley cannot point to any specific document or source that supports his opinion:

Q: Okay. Paragraph 2 says that, “It is my opinion that City of Corinth correctlyinterpreted pre-construction site survey data (existing conditions plan), compared thisdata to the 1981 FIRM map, and properly concluded that the 1981 flood maps wereincorrect or inconsistent with the existing conditions on the ground at this location.”Did I read that correctly?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Okay.

A: You did read it correctly.

Q: You don’t have any direct knowledge of whether that happened. Right?

A: Well, the fact that the building is – exists and they allowed it to be constructed. There was a – I think there’s some meeting minutes where they approved theconstruction of the project. I think it would be a pretty logical conclusion that theyreviewed it and approved it. In fact, I think there’s some documentation to thateffect.

Q: Okay.

A: Although I can’t specifically tell you where or what it is as I sit here today.

Q: In preparing your report, you didn’t speak with anyone from the City of Corinth whomade the determination that you said it made as to correctly interpreting the pre-construction site survey data?

A: I did not speak to anyone.

Q: Because you weren’t a part of that determination. Right?

See Ex. B, Depo. of Eley, p. 52, l. 11 - p. 53, l. 5. 22

12

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 12 of 14 PageID #: 6314

Page 13: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

A: I was not part of it.23

There is no reliable basis for Mr. Eley to state how the City reached the conclusion or whether that

conclusion was correct because he admitted that he had no reliable information to support his

opinion. Accordingly, Mr. Eley’s opinions are inadmissible and should be excluded.

II. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons and for the reasons more fully explained in Kmart’s motion to

exclude or limit Mr. Eley’s testimony, Kmart respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion

in limine and exclude the testimony of Robert Eley.

This the 15th day of November, 2013.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ryan O. Luminais__________________________________________JAMES M. GARNER (La. Bar. No. 19589)JOHN T. BALHOFF, II (La. Bar. No. 24288)RYAN O. LUMINAIS (Miss. Bar. No. 101871)SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, L.L.C.909 Poydras Street, Twenty-eighth FloorNew Orleans, Louisiana 70112Telephone: (504) 299-2100Facsimile: (504) 299-2300ATTORNEYS FOR KMART CORPORATION

See id., p. 93, l. 6 - p. 94, l. 11(emphasis added). 23

13

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 13 of 14 PageID #: 6315

Page 14: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been served on all known counsel

of record with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send-email

notification to all known counsel of record, this 15th day of November, 2013.

/s/ Ryan O. Luminais_________________________________________RYAN O. LUMINAIS

14

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333 Filed: 11/15/13 14 of 14 PageID #: 6316

Page 15: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-1 Filed: 11/15/13 1 of 4 PageID #: 6317

Page 16: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-1 Filed: 11/15/13 2 of 4 PageID #: 6318

Page 17: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-1 Filed: 11/15/13 3 of 4 PageID #: 6319

Page 18: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-1 Filed: 11/15/13 4 of 4 PageID #: 6320

Page 19: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-2 Filed: 11/15/13 1 of 9 PageID #: 6321

mrome
Rectangular Exhibit Stamp
Page 20: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-2 Filed: 11/15/13 2 of 9 PageID #: 6322

Page 21: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-2 Filed: 11/15/13 3 of 9 PageID #: 6323

Page 22: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-2 Filed: 11/15/13 4 of 9 PageID #: 6324

Page 23: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-2 Filed: 11/15/13 5 of 9 PageID #: 6325

Page 24: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-2 Filed: 11/15/13 6 of 9 PageID #: 6326

Page 25: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-2 Filed: 11/15/13 7 of 9 PageID #: 6327

Page 26: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-2 Filed: 11/15/13 8 of 9 PageID #: 6328

Page 27: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-2 Filed: 11/15/13 9 of 9 PageID #: 6329

Page 28: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 1 of 24 PageID #: 6330

mrome
Rectangular Exhibit Stamp
Page 29: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 2 of 24 PageID #: 6331

Page 30: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 3 of 24 PageID #: 6332

Page 31: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 4 of 24 PageID #: 6333

Page 32: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 5 of 24 PageID #: 6334

Page 33: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 6 of 24 PageID #: 6335

Page 34: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 7 of 24 PageID #: 6336

Page 35: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 8 of 24 PageID #: 6337

Page 36: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 9 of 24 PageID #: 6338

Page 37: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 10 of 24 PageID #: 6339

Page 38: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 11 of 24 PageID #: 6340

Page 39: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 12 of 24 PageID #: 6341

Page 40: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 13 of 24 PageID #: 6342

Page 41: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 14 of 24 PageID #: 6343

Page 42: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 15 of 24 PageID #: 6344

Page 43: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 16 of 24 PageID #: 6345

Page 44: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 17 of 24 PageID #: 6346

Page 45: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 18 of 24 PageID #: 6347

Page 46: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 19 of 24 PageID #: 6348

Page 47: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 20 of 24 PageID #: 6349

Page 48: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 21 of 24 PageID #: 6350

Page 49: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 22 of 24 PageID #: 6351

Page 50: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 23 of 24 PageID #: 6352

Page 51: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-3 Filed: 11/15/13 24 of 24 PageID #: 6353

Page 52: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-4 Filed: 11/15/13 1 of 6 PageID #: 6354

mrome
Rectangular Exhibit Stamp
Page 53: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-4 Filed: 11/15/13 2 of 6 PageID #: 6355

Page 54: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-4 Filed: 11/15/13 3 of 6 PageID #: 6356

Page 55: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-4 Filed: 11/15/13 4 of 6 PageID #: 6357

Page 56: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-4 Filed: 11/15/13 5 of 6 PageID #: 6358

Page 57: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-4 Filed: 11/15/13 6 of 6 PageID #: 6359

Page 58: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 1 of 23 PageID #: 6360

mrome
Rectangular Exhibit Stamp
Page 59: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 2 of 23 PageID #: 6361

Page 60: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 3 of 23 PageID #: 6362

Page 61: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 4 of 23 PageID #: 6363

Page 62: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 5 of 23 PageID #: 6364

Page 63: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 6 of 23 PageID #: 6365

Page 64: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 7 of 23 PageID #: 6366

Page 65: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 8 of 23 PageID #: 6367

Page 66: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 9 of 23 PageID #: 6368

Page 67: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 10 of 23 PageID #: 6369

Page 68: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 11 of 23 PageID #: 6370

Page 69: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 12 of 23 PageID #: 6371

Page 70: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 13 of 23 PageID #: 6372

Page 71: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 14 of 23 PageID #: 6373

Page 72: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 15 of 23 PageID #: 6374

Page 73: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 16 of 23 PageID #: 6375

Page 74: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 17 of 23 PageID #: 6376

Page 75: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 18 of 23 PageID #: 6377

Page 76: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 19 of 23 PageID #: 6378

Page 77: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 20 of 23 PageID #: 6379

Page 78: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 21 of 23 PageID #: 6380

Page 79: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 22 of 23 PageID #: 6381

Page 80: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-5 Filed: 11/15/13 23 of 23 PageID #: 6382

Page 81: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-6 Filed: 11/15/13 1 of 4 PageID #: 6383

mrome
Rectangular Exhibit Stamp
Page 82: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-6 Filed: 11/15/13 2 of 4 PageID #: 6384

Page 83: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-6 Filed: 11/15/13 3 of 4 PageID #: 6385

Page 84: 333 rebuttaltoresponsetoexcluderoberteley kmart combine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 333-6 Filed: 11/15/13 4 of 4 PageID #: 6386