Untitled From: Han, Sam S. Ph.D Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:13 PM To: 'JLDickerson@mijs.com' Cc: 'jad@mijs.com'; 'ebasham@mijs.

com'; Han, Sam S. Ph.D Subject: Moses v. Traton et al.: Civ. Action No. 05-1-8395-35 Dear Mr. Dickerson: We have received your fax alleging that our Second Request for Production and Second Request for Admissions are solely propounded for the purposes of harassment and delay. We disagree with your assessment, and provide our response to your "good faith effort" below. We have propounded our requests as a result of Traton's failure or refusal to properly answer our First Request for Admissions. Specifically, Traton has denied that Mr. Moses has complained about the destruction of his yard. Additionally, in Traton's answers and responses, Traton has repeatedly alleged that Mr. Moses' questions and requests are overly broad and vague. In an effort to avoid Traton's objections that our requests are overly broad and vague, we have broken down each request into very narrowly-focused questions and requests. It is inevitable that such a breakdown will result in numerous questions. However, each request seeks a fact or opinion that is relevant to the claims against Traton. Hopefully, the questions in the Second Request for Admissions have now been crafted to specifically target various facts that Mr. Moses hopes to conclusively establish, thereby removing those issues from trial. Given the specificity of each Request for Admission, it should take less than a minute for Traton Corp. to answer each question. In short, it should take less than four (4) hours to complete the responses for the Request for Admissions. We hardly consider four hours to be unduly burdensome to Traton, especially since Traton is responsible for escalating this case to its current status. Also, given that it will likely take more time to file a motion for a protective order, we are puzzled as to why Traton would not simply spend four hours to answer the simple and straightforward requests to admit. If you recall, Mr. Moses had offered to dismiss this case if Traton was simply agreeable to meeting with Mr. Moses to rationally discuss this issue. Despite the fact that Mr. Moses made such a generous offer, Traton declined and indicated that it would pursue this matter through the courts. Given Traton's stubbornly litigious posture, Mr. Moses can hardly be blamed for Traton's decision to shoulder the burden and expense of litigation. In fact, Mr. Moses is likewise annoyed that Traton has unjustifiably escalated this matter, and plans to seek attorneys fees for Traton's stubborn litigiousness. Next, you have not indicated how each of the Request for Admissions is irrelevant. Insofar as each question is relevant to a fact or legal position that Mr. Moses hopes to establish, it is axiomatic that those questions cannot be propounded SOLELY for the purpose of harassment or annoyance. If Traton is willing to admit the following, then Mr. Moses may be agreeable to withdrawing many of the queries in his Second Request for Admissions: (1) Mr. Moses has a possessory interest in the entire yard, up to and including the curb (i.e., that the entire yard is indeed Mr. Moses' yard); (2) a portion of Mr. Moses' yard has been damaged; (3) Traton, either directly or indirectly, damaged that portion of Mr. Moses' yard; Page 1

Untitled (4) agents of Traton subsequently entered onto Mr. Moses' yard, again; and (5) all of those entries onto Mr. Moses' property were without permission. Continuing, there are fourteen (14) categories of documents that we have requested in our Request for Production of Documents. Each of those requests is directed to communications to (or from) officers or agents of Traton Corp. Since a corporation necessarily acts through its officers and agents, it can hardly be disputed that the communications of the officers is irrelevant or not likely to lead to discoverable evidence. In your "good faith effort," you have provided ZERO rationale for why any of the requests for production are irrelevant. You merely indicate, in a conclusory manner, that the materials are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. We hardly consider such conclusory statements, without ANY explanation, a "good faith effort." Please note that we have been extremely generous in our dealings with Mr. Daxe relating to discovery. As of today, we have requested the responsive materials from our FIRST Request for Production FIVE times. These are the same materials that should have been produce by early December. Additionally, despite Traton's delay, we have been generous in accommodating your needs for additional time to respond. Conversely, Traton has been less than cooperative in discovery. Your fax today constitutes the SECOND time that your "good faith effort" has been nothing more than a SINGLE communication. Since we didn't even know that we were in dispute over these matters until your fax, we hardly consider that SAME fax (which identifies the dispute) to be a good faith effort to resolve the dispute. In any event, we have provided you with all of the reasons for why the Second Requests are not propounded for the purposes of harassment, and how we believe that each request is relevant to this matter. As such, we shall not be withdrawing our requests unless Traton admits liability for the damage to Mr. Moses' yard. We look forward to receiving your response, both to our Second Request for Admissions and our Second Request for Production of documents. Please convey our best to Mr. Daxe, should you speak to him before he receives this email message. Since we have promised to provide him until Tuesday to answer our latest query, we shall keep our promise. Sincerely, Sam Han -Sam S. Han, Ph.D., J.D. McGuireWoods LLP The Proscenium 1170 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 2100 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-7649 -Phone: 404.443.5728 Fax: 404.443.5797 Mobile: 404.514.8237 -email: shan@mcguirewoods.com Page 2

Untitled -This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise by return e-mail and delete immediately without reading or forwarding to others.

Page 3