Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. v. Bosgraaf et alBRIEF in support of SECOND MOTION to supplement 87 Newell's Motion for Summary Judgment 118W.D. Mich.September 7, 2016THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Newell Rubbermaid Inc., Plaintiff, v. Kirsch Lofts, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1-cv-15-00597-RJJ Hon. Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF NEWELL’S MOTION TO FURTHER SUPPLEMENT ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING **EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION REQUESTED** On September 2, 2016, the day after Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (“Newell’) filed its Motion to Supplement its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 112 and 113)1, Defendant Kirsch Lofts, LLC (“Kirsch”) once again produced hundreds of documents from its development counsel, Warner Norcross Judd LLP (“WNJ”), and environmental consultants, Rose and Westra, that bear on Newell’s Summary Judgment arguments. Accordingly, Newell requests that the Court grant its Motion to Further Supplement its Summary Judgment Briefing and consider the documents attached hereto as Exhs. E to G2 as additional materials in support of Newell’s Motion for Summary Judgment. I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND Newell incorporates by reference the Factual Background section of its September 1, 2016 Motion to Supplement. See ECF No. 113 at 2-3. In that pleading, Newell started that it 1 The Court granted Newell’s Motion on September 6, 2016. See ECF Nos. 116 and 117. 2 For the Court’s convenience, Newell starts its supplemental exhibit numbering where it left off in its September 1, 2106 Motion to Supplement. Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3738 Page 1 of 4 2 had received 1,843 paper documents (totaling 6,542 pages) from WNJ’s files on August 19, 2016. Newell also informed the Court that, on August 23, 2016, Newell received a flash drive containing 1.12 GB (448 documents) of data from Rose and Westra’s files. Newell further informed the Court that, as of the filing of its September 1 Motion to Supplement, Newell had not received any electronic files from WNJ, and had only received 29 emails from Rose & Westra. See ECF No. 113 at 3. After 9 p.m. EST on September 2, 2016, counsel for Kirsch sent counsel for Newell an email attaching 270 documents from the electronic file of WNJ, as well as 888 Rose and Westra emails.3 II. ARGUMENT Once again, many of the belatedly-produced documents support Newell’s summary judgment arguments and would have been used with experts, at depositions, etc. in this case had they been timely produced.4 Newell wishes to submit the following documents in support of its pending Motion for Summary Judgment: • A December 17, 2008 email chain between Westra, Bosgraaf, Jan Barger (WNJ) and John Byl (WNJ), attached hereto as Exh. E.5 • A May 5, 2009 email between Barger and Westra, attached hereto as Exh. F. 3 Kirsch produced these documents nearly two weeks after the Court-ordered deadline for their production (see ECF No. 98), and only after Newell informed Kirsch in an August 30, 2016 letter that it intended to move to compel the missing documents. See Aug. 30, 2016 Ltr. fr. M. Showalter to D. Bila, attached hereto as Exh. 1; Sept. 2, 2016 Email from D. Bila to M. Showalter, attached hereto as Exh. 2. 4 The documents attached hereto as Exhs. E-G, and the documents attached to Newell’s September 1 Motion to Supplement as Exhs. A-D, are a representative sample and are not the only documents supportive of Newell’s case that have been produced by Kirsch since the close of discovery. 5 Ex. E was included in the WNJ documents that Newell received from Kirsch on August 19, 2016, and was discovered during Newell’s on-going review of those documents. Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3739 Page 2 of 4 3 • A February 8, 2011 email chain between Carl Gabrielse, Scott Bosgraaf and Mark Westra, attached hereto as Exh. G Exhs. E and F The email attached hereto as Exh. E indicates that Kirsch’s previous environmental consultant ERE drafted a baseline environmental assessment that included the results of the sampling conducted during the due diligence process, as well as a recommendation for further sampling to “define the vertical and horizontal extents of the potentially impacted soils.” See Exh. E at Kirsch-WNJ0000149. The supports Newell’s argument that Kirsch was aware well prior to closing that TCE was present in the soil on the property, and that further sampling may be needed (and had in fact been recommended by ERE). See ECF No. 88 at 12; Exh. E at Kirsch- WNJ0000149.6 Exh. F likewise showcases Kirsch’s pre-closing knowledge that MDEQ “think[s] we need to do more TCE investigation[.]” See Exh. F. Exh. G The February 8, 2011 email between Gabrielse and Westra, attached as Exh. G, refutes Kirsch’s statements it its Opposition to Newell’s Motion for Summary that it “never denied Newell access to the property in any meaningful way.” ECF No. 100. See Exh. G (“[W]e told Rubbermaid that they don’t have access until an access agreement is worked out. Essentially, we made access conditional on payment. Perhaps that doesn’t sound much like ‘full cooperation.’”). III. CONCLUSION Newell has been diligent in seeking discovery from Kirsch. See ECF No. 113 at 1-3. Newell was precluded from using Exhs. E to G in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment 6 Exh. E likewise contrasts with Kirsch’s denial in its answer that “Kirsch conducted an environmental investigation itself[.]” See ECF No. 8 at ¶ 36. Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3740 Page 3 of 4 4 by Kirsch’s failure to collect and produce these documents. Accordingly, Newell requests that the Court grant its Motion to Supplement its Summary Judgment Briefing and consider Exhs. E to G hereto in support of its Motion. Respectfully submitted this 7th day of September, 2016. CH2\18729712.1 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP /s/ J. Michael Showalter Gabriel M. Rodriguez grodriguez@schiffhardin.com Joshua More jmore@schiffhardin.com J. Michael Showalter mshowalter@schiffhardin.com Katherine S. Walton kwalton@schiffhardin.com 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 258-5500 Facsimile: (312) 258-5600 Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3741 Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT 1 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3742 Page 1 of 22 J. Michael Showalter (312) 258.5561 mshowalter@schiffhardin.com Schiff Hardin LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 T 312.258.5500 F 312.258.5600 schiffhardin.com August 30, 2016 VIA EMAIL Dennis Bila Bila & Associates, PLLC 4270 Cottontail Lane Harbor Springs, MI 49740 Dear Dennis: I write again with respect to the documents produced by Kirsch Lofts LLC (“Kirsch”) from Warner Norcross & Judd LLP (“WNJ”) and Rose & Westra, Inc. (“R&W”) on August 19, 2016 and August 23, 2016, respectively,1 as well as to inquire as to when Kirsch intends to produce a privilege log. WNJ Production Pursuant to the Court’s July 25, 2016 order (ECF No. 98), Newell’s vendor scanned in more than 1,843 paper documents (as Newell’s consultant unitized them) totaling more than 6,452 pages from WNJ’s paper file during the week of August 19, 2016. To date, Newell has not received any electronic documents, including electronic email or Excel files, from WNJ. We have repeatedly asked you to confirm whether such files exist and, if so, when they will be produced. See Exh. A. In the event that WNJ has not retained its electronic files, please provide us information as to when those files were destroyed. Please provide us with the above-requested information by September 2, 2016, or we will be forced to seek relief from the Court. 1 The WNJ documents were produced after Newell, at its own expense, hired a vendor to scan WNJ’s paper file. See Exh. A. In addition, though you had represented to Newell that the R&W documents were in your possession at least as of August 9, 2016, a copy of the flash drive containing the R&W documents was not mailed to Newell until August 19, 2016. See Exh. A. Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3743 Page 2 of 22 Dennis W. Bila August 30, 2016 Page 2 R&W Production Newell received a flash drive containing 1.12 GB (448 documents) of data from R&W on August 23, 2016.2 Though the flash drive contained five separate Outlook data files (appearing to correlate with each of Rose & Westra’s Kirsch-related matters), only one of those files contained any emails. That file contained only 29 emails. On August 23, 2016, we informed you of the discrepancy and asked you to speak with Mr. Westra about collecting the remainder of R&W’s emails related to the Kirsch matter, as required by the Court’s order. See ECF No. 98 (ordering Kirsch to produce “everything in the Rose & Westra file[.]” ); see also Exh. B. We reiterated our request on August 24, 2016. See Ex. A. Please confirm by September 2, 2016 whether there are additional R&W emails and, if so, when they will be produced, or we will be forced to seek relief from the Court. To the extent that R&W disposed of or destroyed its emails, please let us know when this occurred. Additionally, we informed you on August 29, 2016 the following files were loaded only as “invisible files,” which are automatically created when files are saved to an Apple device but do not actually contain any readable data:3 2 The WNJ production and the R&W production dwarf Kirsch’s previous document productions in this matter, which comprised approximately 1750 pages of .pdf and several hundred files which were generally emails. 3 See, e.g., http://www.cnet.com/news/invisible-files-with-prefix-are-created-on-some- shared-volumes-and-external-disks/. Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3744 Page 3 of 22 Dennis W. Bila August 30, 2016 Page 3 There should also be native files associated with each of the above-listed file names. Our consultants inform us that the “invisible” files may exist because they were originally created on a Mac computer and transferred to the flash drive with the associated natives, but someone removed the native files from the flash drive. Please advise by September 2, 2016 if Kirsch will collect and produce the native files associated with the above-listed file names from R&W. PRIVILEGE LOG On July 22, 2016, Kirsch informed Newell that it had inadvertently produced documents that were subject to a claim of attorney work product and/or attorney-client privilege. See Exh. C at 3-4. Newell immediately destroyed the documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B). Please advise by September 2, 2016 as to when Kirsch intends to produce a privilege log for those documents as well as any other documents that Kirsch has withheld subject to a claim of privilege. Sincerely, /s/ J. Michael Showalter J. Michael Showalter JMS/nb CH2\18707950.1\04:17 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3745 Page 4 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3746 Page 5 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3747 Page 6 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3748 Page 7 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3749 Page 8 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3750 Page 9 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3751 Page 10 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3752 Page 11 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3753 Page 12 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3754 Page 13 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3755 Page 14 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3756 Page 15 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3757 Page 16 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3758 Page 17 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3759 Page 18 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3760 Page 19 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3761 Page 20 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3762 Page 21 of 22 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-1 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3763 Page 22 of 22 EXHIBIT 2 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-2 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3764 Page 1 of 3 1 Sanderson, Ryan From: Showalter, J. Michael Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 9:41 PM To: Walton, Katherine S.; Rodriguez, Gabriel M. Subject: Fwd: Kirsch Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Dennis Bila Date: September 2, 2016 at 8:17:35 PM CDT To: "Showalter, J. Michael" Subject: Kirsch The purpose of this email is to respond to your letter dated August 30, 2016. As requested, we have followed up with both Warner Norcross as well as Rose & Westra regarding the documents they had provided us. Warner Norcross A few months ago, when you had asked us to obtain and produce Warner Norcross' file, we had requested the entire file in whatever form it was kept. Since Warner Norcross is obviously a well‐respected law firm, we had no reason to doubt that they knew what our request meant or that they would appropriately respond to the request. Nevertheless, after following up with Warner Norcross at your request, they did indicate that they did have some electronic files that were not originally given to us. They can be accessed, unredacted and in the format we received them, via the following link (which is the actual link we received from Warner Norcross): https://files.wnj.com/KirschLofts.zip. The password for the documents is: Wednesday.2016! To be clear, these files are largely duplicative of what has already been produced. Additionally, there are some files that are not necessarily responsive to your discovery requests as they relate to another project. Nevertheless, in an effort to be completely transparent, we are providing you the link as received from Warner Norcross rather than deleting anything. Rose & Westra You had indicated that there are four Outlook data files on the flash drive provided that do not contain any emails. At your request, we contacted Rose & Westra. We were told that Rose & Westra's IT department would access their Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-2 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3765 Page 2 of 3 2 remote archives in an effort to retrieve a copy of the data files that was actually populated. After some effort, they were able to retrieve the files and provide them to us. We have placed the four Outlook data files, unredacted and in the format we received them, in the shared Dropbox folder ("SchiffHardin‐Bila shared folder"). Additionally, you identified fifteen files on the flash drive provided that you described as "invisible files" that you indicated do not contain readable data. We have reviewed the carbon copy of the flash drive we provided to you and have located the files you identified. Using a Dell laptop, we were able to open and read all of the files you identified without any problem. Nevertheless, we are once again providing these fifteen files to you, unredacted and in the format we received them, in the shared Dropbox folder ("SchiffHardin‐Bila shared folder"). Privilege Log Kirsch Lofts has never withheld any documents based on a claim of privilege. The issue raised in the July 22, 2016 email was that we had simply sent you a version of two documents that contained PDF electronic highlighting and comments made by Scott and Carl for the purpose of seeking advice from their attorney at the time. You have the underlying documents in your possession‐‐in fact, they are public documents. Because no documents are being withheld, no privilege log is required. Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-2 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3766 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT E Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-3 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3767 Page 1 of 3 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-3 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3768 Page 2 of 3 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-3 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3769 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT F Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-4 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3770 Page 1 of 2 1 Sanderson, Ryan From: Barger, Jan Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:59 AM To: Mark Westra Subject: RE: More Kirsch Thanks. I just got off the phone with Carrie and do need to talk with you. Give me a call when you can break free for a few minutes. It sounds like they think we need to do more TCE investigation in the building and from what Scott told me yesterday the floor already looks like "swiss cheese" and my memory says we didn't find much inside (I suspect your data says the same although I haven't looked at it yet). This afternoon is fine if your morning is crazy. I will be in Lansing tomorrow, though, so I want to get as much of this addressed as we can today. Thanks! Jan ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Mark Westra [mailto:MAW@rosewestra.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:33 AM To: Barger, Jan Subject: More Kirsch Jan: Attached is a sketch of the building and combined locations of ERE's and R&W's borings. I've also attached a data summary table for our tests. ERE's Phase II presents their numbers. If you have questions about the TCE concentrations, give me a call. Mark ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: HP 9040 MFP [mailto:administrator@rosewestra.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:30 AM To: Mark Westra Subject: Please open the attached document. This document was digitally sent to you using an HP Digital Sending device. Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-4 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3771 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT G Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-5 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3772 Page 1 of 7 1 Sanderson, Ryan From: Carl Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:37 AM To: Scott Bosgraaf Cc: Mark Westra Subject: FW: Sturgis Municipal Well Field Attachments: ltr to louis meschede re access to property.docx; LTR FROM RODRIGUEZ RE ACCESS.pdf …sorry, pressed Alt+S (which is a shortcut to send) instead of Shif+S which would have simply typed a capitalized “S” for Section. Its continued below… From: Carl [mailto:carl@asumi.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:31 AM To: 'Scott Bosgraaf' Cc: Mark Westra (mawestra@rosewestra.com) Subject: RE: Sturgis Municipal Well Field Mark, We wanted to get your thoughts on a couple of concerns we have. I believe Scott had sent you our letter to Rubbermaid as well as Rubbermaid’s response, but they are attached anyway. I guess the million‐dollar question (figuratively and perhaps literally) is this: Can we demand reasonable compensation from Rubbermaid and still qualify as a BFPP by “fully cooperating” under Section 9601(40)(E)? In our letter, we told Rubbermaid that they don’t have access until an access agreement is worked out. Essentially, we made access conditional on payment. Perhaps that doesn’t sound much like “full cooperation.” Do we need to clarify (based on the “enlightening” letter from Attorney Rodriguez) that 1) we will continue to comply with Section 9601(40)(E) and therefore, Rubbermaid does have access and 2) we will be holding them responsible under the consent decree to reasonably compensate us. Thoughts? Carl From: Scott Bosgraaf [mailto:scottb@asumi.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:09 AM To: 'Carl' Subject: FW: Sturgis Municipal Well Field From: Mark Westra [mailto:MAWestra@rosewestra.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 9:04 AM Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-5 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3773 Page 2 of 7 2 To: Scott Bosgraaf Subject: RE: Sturgis Municipal Well Field Interesting but not surprising. You do qualify for BFPP – but as he states that protection is conditional. Next steps? From: Scott Bosgraaf [mailto:scottb@asumi.org] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 6:08 PM To: Mark Westra Subject: FW: Sturgis Municipal Well Field Even more interesting................................. From: Rodriguez, Gabriel M. [mailto:grodriguez@schiffhardin.com] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 12:40 PM To: (scottb@asumi.org) Cc: Robert L. Franks (franksr1@michigan.gov) Subject: Sturgis Municipal Well Field Please see the attached. Gabriel M. Rodriguez Schiff Hardin LLP 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 6600 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Tel 312-258-5516 Fax 312-258-5600 Email grodriguez@schiffhardin.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tax Matters: To the extent this message or any attachment concerns tax matters, it is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by a taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under law. ------------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error. Then delete it. Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Control Panel Login To: mawestra@rosewestra.com From: carl@asumi.org Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-5 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3774 Page 3 of 7 Kirsch Lofts, LLC 200 N. Franklin, Suite 100 Zeeland, Michigan 49464 616.748.5701 September 7, 2016 Louis Meschede Newell Rubbermaid 3 Glenlake Parkway Atlanta, Georgia 30328 Re: Property Access Dear Louis, Since contamination was found on our property located at 308 Prospect in Sturgis, Michigan in the fall of 2009, we have cooperated with the DNRE (and Rubbermaid as the responsible party) in addressing the issue. We put our development on hold and gave Rubbermaid virtually unlimited access to the property for the purpose of assessing the situation and formulating a remediation plan. It is our understanding that Rubbermaid has submitted a report to the MDNRE last month. Before moving into the remediation phase of the clean‐up process, however, we need to discuss Rubbermaid’s access to the property. In 1998, a limited easement was granted to Kirsch, Inc. that related to the pollution control system located on the Property (the “Easement”). It is our understanding that, by assignment, Rubbermaid now holds the access rights contained in that Easement. The Easement, however, is limited both in terms of physical location as well as in terms of activities permitted (for your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the Easement as well as a plat map showing the physical scope of the easement). In short, the Easement does not provide Rubbermaid with the access rights needed to accomplish the remediation that Rubbermaid is presently responsible for. Per the 1998 Consent Decree, it is the responsibility of Rubbermaid to use “best efforts” to secure access rights to the property (Section 11.2 ‐ attached). To date, however, Rubbermaid has not contacted us to discuss securing access rights necessary for the remediation process. We have no intention of “financing” the long‐term remediation efforts by mothballing the project. As the responsible party under the Consent Decree, Rubbermaid is obligated to compensate us for access to the property—and for any “loss of use” of the Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-5 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3775 Page 4 of 7 2 | P a g e property or other damages that may result from Rubbermaid’s remediation activities (See Consent Decree, Section 11.2; MCL § 324.20135a ‐ attached). To date, Rubbermaid has never approached us about obtaining the access rights it needs or to compensate us for such access as required by the Consent Decree. Effective February 1, 2011—and until an access agreement is reached—Rubbermaid will no longer be given access to our property, except to the extent provided by the 1998 Easement. With regard to reaching an amicable agreement for the access rights Rubbermaid needs in order to comply with its responsibilities to the MDNRE, we see three possible solutions: Rubbermaid purchases the property from Kirsch Lofts, LLC; Rubbermaid becomes the leveraged lender for construction of the property as a rental project; or Rubbermaid compensates Kirsch Lofts, LLC for the carrying costs and other damages resulting from the delay in development. As always, I am willing to meet in person or by telephone to discuss this matter. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours Truly, Scott T. Bosgraaf Manager Enclosures Cc: Robert Franks, MDNRE via email Gabriel Rodriguez, Schiff Hardin via email Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-5 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3776 Page 5 of 7 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-5 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3777 Page 6 of 7 Case 1:15-cv-00597-RJJ ECF No. 119-5 filed 09/07/16 PageID.3778 Page 7 of 7
