My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena and Order
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena and Order
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2010 1:21:48 PM
Creation date
7/7/2010 3:25:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 00CW259 Vail RICD and Case No. 00CW281 Breckenridge RICD
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/2002
Author
Ken Salazar, Susan J. Schneider, John J. Cyran, Shana Smilovits
Title
Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena and Order
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
r. U uo <br />PIor ak Browning & Bushong >LLP <br />& T T O R N B Y S AT , L A W <br />CilCnrf E. PorrA <br />Midj,icl F. Browning <br />steven J. 13usht 1 <br />1'hnrn.i5 A. C arr <br />Kristin Hawc,a Mosc <br />Kt'vin J. Kinnear <br />R Fritz liollcm�n, Of Caunscl <br />L awroncr ►. MacDonncll, (:)f Counsel <br />.U'cf Lia.111c)_ 30 6-0,3 1 5d <br />John Cyran, l sal_ <br />SLI";111 Schneider, Esq. <br />Assistant Attorney Cenoi•cls <br />1525 Shcniian StrOct, 501 Floor <br />Dctivar, CO 802013 <br />Al)ril 23, 2002 <br />Re: pre -trial Matters in Case Nos. OOCW259 and OOCW281 <br />Dear J ollil ,.Ind Susiin: <br />929 Pearl street <br />sulle 300 <br />Boulder, CO 50302 <br />303 443.6800 <br />Fax 303 443 -6864 <br />`T'llis better is to Co11(11 Illy 11a&, on several 11rc-trled 117attcr we have discussed <br />over the I1ast se;VC.r31 days. l.ct Ille 1CAow if your undertitandilig differs on any of thcsc 1 <br />I. tjpoil receipt orthc Suite's pic -trial exhibit objections, we requested that tllc StatC <br />fcco nsider its oQ auth emicity objections to the App licants' cxbibils. AS I indicated, we b e li eve <br />this is a serious Illauer and appears to be designed to crcato urinecessary work and cause delay. <br />ye storElay, JUlln rppresented to rno that lie w ould withdraw Fill the aui11e11tiCity 0bjcctirnls made in <br />both cases. However, ill 111. letter T.,just received a short time ago, John indicated he would <br />withdraw ilie authcritioity 017JCctioll 10 " 1liany" orApplicants' exhibits but ap not all of <br />them. Without Icnowing what the Statc intends to do or with what exhibits, you are hereby on <br />11otiee that we are procceding to gatl"Cr such evidence as is necessary to respond to the <br />atitl1Cl1[ic.ity Objcetiol'is. We disagroe with you that the State atl.orneys arc not subject to Mule 1 l <br />oa this matter. <br />As for ilia Applicants' Rynndation objections, I reiterate my previous response to <br />John, ALithenticity and foundation are not the same thing. A,uthonticity relates to whether the <br />doclinicllt is what it is purported to be (Le, is it authentic); while foundation relates to whetlzcr <br />thcro exists the knomiledge or foundation by which to introduce ail authentic document through a <br />givctl w itness. Our foundation objections are not authenticity objections. <br />2. As previously noted, we have always been willing to work with Ken Kiiox's <br />schedule.. Until the: siattis eonrerence today, we were willing to release I4cn from his subpoena <br />for two days dining the first week to accomadate his other c0111rilitnlCnts. I10wcvcr, given it <br />directiolt from the Court. today to do everythpig itt our power to wrap tip both trials in ilia first <br />week, t l l:l t t5 1101' I705Sll�lL- Glenn loft you a message earlier today about the possibility of reading <br />I'V0 <br />E IBIT <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.