Example 2 - Joint List of Exhibits and Objections to Exhibits; Example 4 - Exhibit List; Example 1 - Proposed Jury Instructions; Example 3 - Joint Submissions of Motions in Limine

=== Example 2 - Joint List of Exhibits and Objections to Exhibits ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PLAINTIFF(S) NAME, Case No. Plaintiff(s), v. DEFENDANT(S) NAME, Defendant(s). EXAMPLE #2: JOINT LIST OF EXHIBITS AND OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS No. Description Stipulated Objection(s) & Response(s) PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS Lilly’s U.S. Procedure on Travel & Expense Reporting, 1/1/2008 Ex: Obj: “Relevance” Resp: Pl. argue it is relevant to their understanding or recordkeeping obligations DEFENDANT’S EXHIBITS Description Stipulated Objection(s) & Response(s) 1 2 3 4 No. 501 502 503 504

=== Example 4 - Exhibit List ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PLAINTIFF(S) NAME, Case No. Plaintiff(s), EXAMPLE #4: EXHIBIT LIST v. DEFENDANT(S) NAME, Defendant(s). PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS Description Stipulated Pre-Admit. Offered Received DEFENDANT’S EXHIBITS Description Stipulated Pre-Admit. Offered Received No. 1 2 3 4 No. 501 502 503 504

=== Example 1 - Proposed Jury Instructions ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. No. PROPOSED JOINT JURY INSTRUCTIONS Defendants. The parties respectfully submit the following proposed Joint Jury Instructions for the Court's review. The parties also submit proposed jury instructions which the parties have not agreed on along with a brief analysis of why the proposed jury instruction should be given. Respectfully submitted this 10th day of May, 201 1. Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Of Attorneys for Defendants Page - 1 JOINT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS JOINT INSTRUCTIONS NO. TITLE AGREED PLTF'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION INSTRUCTION DEF'S PROPOSED 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Introduction Duty of Jury Burden of Proof - Preponderance of the Evidence Two or More Parties - Different Legal Rights What is Evidence What is Not Evidence Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Credibility of Witness Impeachment Evidence - Witness Expert Opinion 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendants Freeman and Hanada in Individual Capacity - Elements and Burden of Proof Unreasonable Seizure of Person - Generally Unlawful AlTest Excessive (Deadly and Nondeadly Force) Force During Arrest Use of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 X X X X X X X X X X- instruction agreed to by the parties; need to add ~pplicable JUry instruction numbers X X X X X Page - 2 JOINT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS X X X X X NO. TITLE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Hindsight Resisting Arrest Oregon Law - Assaulting a Public Safety Officer Oregon Law - Harassment Oregon Law - Battery Oregon Law - False AlTest Damages - Proof Compensatory Damages Nominal Damages Duty to Deliberate Communication with Court Return of Verdict AGREED PLTF'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION INSTRUCTION DEF'S PROPOSED X X X X X X X X X X X X Page - 3 JOINT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS JOINT REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO.2 Duty of Jury Ladies and gentlemen: You are now the jury in this case. lt is my duty to instruct you on the law. You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be. lt is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts you wil apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before you. You wil recall that you took an oath to do so. In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some and ignore others; they are all important. Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction NO.1. 1 B (2007) Page - 5 JOINT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 14 Unreasonable Seizure of Person - Unlawful Arrest In general, a seizure of a person by arrest without a warrant is reasonable if the arresting offcers had probable cause to believe the plaintiff has committed or was committing a crime. In order to prove the seizure in this case was unreasonable, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was alTested without probable cause. "Probable cause" exists when, under all of the circumstances known to the officers at the time, an objectively reasonable police offcer would conclude there is a fair probability that the plaintiff has committed or was committing a crime. Under state law, it is a crime to assault a public safety officer. A person commits the crime of assaulting a public safety officer if the person intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to the other person, knowing the other person to be a peace officer, corrections officer, youth cOlTection officer, parole and probation officer, animal control officer, firefighter or staff member, and while the other person is acting in the course of official duty. "Physical injury" means impairment of physical condition or substantial pain and excludes pain that is fleeting or inconsequentiaL. Under state law, a person commits the crime of resisting arrest if the person intentionally resists a person known to be a police officer in making an arrest. A person cannot use physical force to resist an alTest by a police officer, even if the alTest is unlawfuL. If, however, Plaintiff reasonably believed that the officers arresting her were using more physical force than was necessar to make the arrest, then Plaintiff was entitled to use physical force in self-defense. In defending, Plaintiff was entitled to use only that degree of physical force that she reasonably believed to be necessary to defend herself against what she believed to be the excessive force. I instruct you that the Defendants did not have probable cause to alTest Plaintifffor the cited crimes of theft II, furnishing alcohol to a minor, and harassment. Page - 20 JOINT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS Plaintiff's Instructions includes the 9th Cir. Model Instruction for a probable cause arrest and, as the model instructions provide, includes the elements ofthe crimes for which probable cause must have existed for the arrest. This instruction also limits the jury from considering whether probable cause existed for the other cited crimes as the court has already determined that Defendants lacked probable cause for those three crimes. Ninth Cir. Model Jury Instruction 9.20 (2007)(modified); ORS 163.208; ORS 161.015(7); State v. Poole, 175 Or.App. 258, 28 P.3d 643,645 App., 2001); Uniform Criminal Jury Instruction No. 1225 (modified); Uniform Criminal Jury Instruction No. 1227 (modified); ORS 161.260 Page - 21 JOINT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS DEFENDANTS' REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 14 Unreasonable Seizure of Person - Unlawful Arrest In her first claim, plaintiff has the burden to prove that the acts of defendants Officer Chris Freeman and Michael Hanada deprived the plaintiff of rights under the United States Constitution. In this claim, plaintiff alleges the defendants deprived her of her rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution by arresting her without probable cause to believe that she had committed a cnme. In general, a seizure of a person by alTest without a walTant is reasonable if the alTesting officer had probable cause to believe the plaintiff has committed or was committing a crime. In order to prove the seizure in this case was reasonable, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was arrested without probable cause. Probable cause to arrest exists if the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting offcer, in light of his training and experience, would leave such offcer to believe that the suspect has probably committed a crime. Probable cause does not require that the arresting officer has evidence sufficient to prove a suspect's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, the officer must have a reasonable belief in the suspect's guilt. I instruct you that if you find that plaintiff slapped Offcer Freeman's hand, then there was probable cause to arrest plaintiff for assaulting a public safety officer. Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction NO.9 .20 (2007) (modified); Beauregard v. Wingard, F.2d 901,904 (9th Cir. 1966); Us. v. Sears, 663 F.2d 896, 903-904 (9th Cir. 1981) 362 Page - 22 JOINT PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

=== Example 3 - Joint Submissions of Motions in Limine ===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION JOINT SUBMISSION OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE Page 1 - JOINT SUBMISSION OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE Pursuant to the Jury Trial Management Order, the parties have conferred and agreed upon the following checklist of motions in limine for the court to consider: Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine No. Title of Motion in Limine Ruling 1 2 3 4 5 Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude evidence of defendants’ actual or projected profits or losses after seizing the assets of FTB. Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude discussions of, or reference to, settlement communications between plaintiffs and defendants made after April 15, 2009. Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude evidence of FTB’s payments to the Ryans. Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude evidence of post-asset seizure negotiations between counsel. Plaintiffs move in limine to exclude evidence of defendants’ attorney fees. Defendants’ Motions in Limine No. Title of Motion in Limine Ruling 1 2 The Court should exclude any evidence or argument that plaintiff is entitled to damages for more than the assets and equipment that FTUSA moved from the Boeckman Facility on March 27, 2009. The Court should exclude evidence of FTUSA’s net worth unless and until plaintiff proves clear and convincing evidence entitling it to an award of punitive damages. Page 2 - JOINT SUBMISSION OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE Defendants’ Motions in Limine No. Title of Motion in Limine Ruling 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The Court should exclude the use of the phrase “Snatch and Grab” or words such as “raid” or “covert” or “theft” or other such hyperbole to describe the movement of the equipment. The Court should exclude any evidence or argument regarding plaintiff’s now-dismissed Claim Eight of Breach of Contract. The Court should exclude any evidence or argument by plaintiff of what Kenny Gilman allegedly said to Mr. Ryan about putting Builders out of business if it competed. The Court should exclude any evidence of FTUSA’s history of suing any other entities or individuals or evidence of FTUSA’s history of getting sued by any entity or individual. The Court should exclude any evidence regarding FTUSA’s status as a foreign corporation. The Court should exclude any evidence supporting an unpleaded claim of trespass to chattels rather than plaintiff’s pleaded claim of trespass to land. The Court should exclude any evidence of Mark Ryan’s appraisals regarding Builders’ value, including but not limited to any evidence supporting Mr. Ryan’s defective methodology which assumes an ongoing business relationship with FTUSA. The Court should exclude any argument or evidence of FTUSA’s early estimates of the value of Builders and of Builders’ equipment. The Court should exclude any evidence inquiring into attorney client privileged communications or that would reveal to the jury the waiver or nonwaiver of evidence subject to such privilege. The Court should exclude any evidence or opinion indicating or implying that the Internal Revenue Service might accept less than the full amount of its $994,347 lien in satisfaction of Builders’ debt. The Court should exclude any evidence regarding the alleged misrepresentation for the fraud claim aside from FTUSA’s statement of its intention to lease the Boeckman Facility on a month-to-month basis. The Court should exclude any evidence that FTUSA failed to pay Builders the same that FTUSA paid Grass Valley. Page 3 - JOINT SUBMISSION OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE Defendants’ Motions in Limine No. Title of Motion in Limine Ruling 15 16 17 The Court should exclude evidence or argument that the lease was important part of the deal. The Court should exclude any evidence or argument suggesting or implying that FTUSA had a duty of good faith during the parties’ negotiations. The Court should exclude any evidence or argument related to University of Oregon v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, Lane County Circuit Court Case No. 160927390. DATED this 10th day of January, 2012. Page 4 - JOINT SUBMISSION OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE