Honorable Robert H. Gallivan, Judge Presiding

Reporter's Transcript

May 24th, 2002

Appearances of Counsel:

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA - FRIDAY, MAY 24th, 2002

     THE COURT:  BLUESTONE VERSUS BERGSTROM. WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THIS ONE?

     MS. SCHNEIDER:  DEPUTY ATTORNEY LINDA SCHNEIDER FOR THE MEDICAL BOARD.

     MS. REAGAN:  ELAINE REAGAN FOR THE DEFENDANT BERGSTROM.

     THE COURT:  HAVE WE RESOLVED THE MATTER?

     MS. REAGAN:  I HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN ANY DOCUMENTS.

     THE COURT:  DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A HEARING TODAY?

     MS. REAGAN:  AN IN-CAMERA REVIEW.

     THE COURT:  IS THAT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO?

     MS. SCHNEIDER:  LAST TIME WE WERE HERE ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO, WE HAD AGREED TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING THE DOCUMENTS AND I AGREED TO MEET TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS AND A PRIVILEGED LOG FOR DOCUMENTS.  I DID NOT INTEND TO PROVIDE TO DEFENSE COUNSEL.  FOLLOWING THAT, MR. NEWMAN, PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL, SENT A LETTER INDICATING THAT HE WAS WITHDRAWING JOANNA PATRICE FROM HIS WITNESS LIST, SO AT THAT POINT IT SEEMED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE IRRELEVANT IN THE CASE.

      THEREFORE, WE TOOK OUR MEET AND CONFER OFF CALENDAR AND BROUGHT THE MATTER BACK TO THE COURT TODAY.

     MS. REAGAN:  I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR HONOR HAS SEEN IT; I FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION YESTERDAY.  I ALSO RESPONDED TO MR. NEWMAN'S LETTER INDICATING THAT DR. GRANT IS STILL A WITNESS IN THIS CASE, HIS REPORT IS STILL PART OF THIS BOARD'S FILE, AND HE HAS TESTIFIED WITH REGARDS O MS. PATRICE'S CASE AS PART OF THE PATTERN OF FRAUD THAT THEY RELY UPON.

     SO UNLESS MR. NEWMAN IS WILLING TO WITHDRAW HIS EXPERT DR. GRANT, THE RECORDS ARE STILL RELEVANT.

     MS. SCHNEIDER:  I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO PROVIDING THE COPY OF DR. GRANT'S REPORT THAT WERE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD IN CONNECTION WITH THE PATRICE CONSUMER COMPLAINT.

     THE COURT:  WILL THAT SUFFICE?

     MS. REAGAN:  I CAN'T SAY THAT UST THE REPORT OF DR. GRANT WILL SUFFICE.  I CERTAINLY WANT THAT, BUT UNLESS I KNOW WHAT MS. PATRICE'S COMPLAINTS WERE TO THE BOARD AND WHAT THE RESPONSIBILITIES WERE - -

     THE COURT:  DO YOU HAVE DR. GRANT'S REPORT HERE?

     MS. SCHNEIDER:  YES, YOUR HONOR.

     THE COURT:  WHY DON'T WE - - SINCE YOU ARE TO PRODUCE IT, WHY DON'T WE HAVE YOU REVIEW IT AND SEE IF YOU NED ANYTHING ELSE.  I WILL TAKE A LITTLE RECESS AND READ YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION.  THANK YOU.

                                 (RECESS TAKEN)

     THE COURT:  ON THE MATTER OF BLUESTONE, WANT TO STEP FORWARD.

     MS. SCHNEIDER:  YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO TO BRING TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION MS. PATRICE HAS ALSO ARRIVED IN COURT AND APPARENTLY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT.

     THE COURT:  WANT TO STEP FORWARD, MS. PATRICE.  THE CLERK DID BRING ME A DECLARATION THAT YOU HAVE FILED.  WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY?

     MS. PATRICE:  WELL, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP TOO MUCH OF THE COURT'S TIME, BUT I FEEL THAT IN THIS SITUATION I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CASE, I AM NOT A WITNESS.  BECAUSE I AM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO  SPOKE OUT ABOUT MY EXPERIENCES AT ALL CARE, I SPOKE THE TRUTH, I AM BEING HARASSED BY ALL CARE'S ATTORNEYS IN VERY BAD FAITH.

      THE COURT:  HAVE WE CONFIRMED THAT SHE IS NOT GOING TO BE A WITNESS?

     MS. REAGAN:  MR. NEWMAN HAS SENT A LETTER CONFIRMING HE WILL STIPULATE NOT TO CALL HER AS A WITNESS FOR THE FIRST TIME LAST WEEK.

     PRIOR TO THAT, EVERY TIME I WOULD ASK HIM, BASICALLY HE WOULD TELL ME THAT HE COULD NOT STIPULATE TO THAT AND HE WOULDN'T ADVISE ME SPECIFICALLY THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO CALL HER AS A WITNESS.

     THE COURT:  BUT YOU NOW KNOW THAT HE IS NOT.

     MS. REAGAN:  CORRECT.

     THE COURT:  DO WE NEED MS. PATRICE, HER INVOLVEMENT IN THIS MATTER ANY FURTHER?

     MS. REAGAN:  YOUR HONOR, ALL I ASK FOR AT THIS POINT IS ANY RECORDS REFLECTING WHAT DR. GRANT WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED IN PROVIDING HIS REPORT AND ANY RECORDS REFLECTING OPINIONS WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO THOSE OF DR. GRANT.

     I BELIEVE THOSE ARE RELEVANT TO THIS CASE IF DR. GRANT IS GOING TO TESTIFY ABOUT MRS. O OR MRS. PATRICE.

     THE COURT:  DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO RELEASING THE REPORT OF DR. GRANT?

     MS. SCHNEIDER:  I JUST RELEASED IT.

     THE COURT:  DON'T YOU HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED NOW?

     MS. REAGAN:  I BELIEVE WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE SAID IS THEY WOULD NOT PURSUE MS. PATRICE'S ACTION BECAUSE THERE WERE INCONSISTENT REPORTS OF EXPERTS.

     I THINK I AM ENTITLED TO THE REPORTS OF THE OTHER EXPERTS WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT ALL CARE COMMITTED ANY MALPRACTICE OR FRAUD ON MS. PATRICE.

     THE COURT:  THE PATRICE MATTER IS NOT BEFORE ME.  I HAVE BLUESTONE VERSUS BERGSTROM, ET AL.

     MS. REAGAN:  CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.  BUT IF DR. GRANT IS GOING TO TESTIFY MS. PATRICE'S CASE IS ONE OF THOSE CASES HE'S RELYING ON TO SHOW A PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF FRAUD, I THINK I AM ENTITLED TO FIND OUT IF THERE ARE OTHER EXPERTS WHO DISAGREED WITH HIM.

     THE COURT:  CAN'T YOU SUBPOENA HIM AND TAKE HIS DEPOSITION OR SOMETHING?

     MS. REAGAN:  I DON'T KNOW THAT HE WOULD BE AWARE OF ANY OTHER EXPERT REPORTS THAT WOULD BE IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S FILE.    

     THE COURT:  WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO?  I AM CONFUSED. 

     MS. REAGAN:  I WOULD LIKE FOR THE COURT TO CONDUCT A REVIEW OF THE FILE AND DETERMINE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO OR INCONSISTENT WITH DR. GRANT'S OPINION.

    THE COURT:  YOU READ DR. GRANT'S OPINION, RIGHT?

     MS. SCHNEIDER:  CORRECT.

     THE COURT:  AND HE FEELS IN THE PATRICE MATTER HE ARRIVED AT CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS, I GUESS; HE WAS VERY CRITICAL OF THE CARE THAT ALL CARE CLINIC PROVIDED IN THE TREATMENT OF HER ANIMAL, RUSTY.

     MS. REAGAN:  CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

     THE COURT:  DOESN'T THAT PUT AN END TO IT?  WHAT DO YOU NEED?

     MS. REAGAN:  MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE ARE REPORTS FROM OTHER EXPERTS IN THE FIELD.

     THE COURT:  OTHER REPORTS FROM OTHER EXPERTS IN THE GRANT FILE?

     MS. REAGAN:  IN THE PATRICE FILE THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH DR. GRANT'S OPINION THE PATRICE MATTER.

     THE COURT:  SHALL WE TAKE A LOOK AT THEM IN-CAMERA?

     MS. PATRICE:  MAY I SAY SOMETHING?  FIRST OF ALL, THAT IS ANECDOTAL.  DURING THE DEPOSITION THEY ASKED ME IF I KNEW WHY MY CASE WAS CLOSED AND I WAS GUESSING AT THAT.  SO THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT.  I WAS GUESSING AT THAT.  IN VIEW OF WHAT THEY HAVE PUT ME THROUGH IN THE PAST, I FEEL IF THEY GET ANYTHING, THEY WILL USE IT IN BAD FAITH AS AN EXCUSE TO HARASS, INTIMIDATE ME AND BRING ME IN, TO DRAG ME INTO THIS.

     THE COURT:  MA'AM, DO YOU HAVE A CASE PENDING?

     MS. PATRICE:  NO, BUT THEY HAVE DRAGGED ME INTO THE BLUESTONE CASE.  I WAS NEVER LISTED AS A WITNESS.  I WAS ONE OF 100 PEOPLE THEY SPOKE TO.  THEY BADGERED ME FOR TWO DAYS.

     THE COURT:  HERE IS THE PROBLEM.  APPARENTLY THE PLAINTIFF, MR. BLUESTONE, INTENDS TO CALL DR. GRANT, RIGHT, AND DR. GRANT APPARENTLY IS GOING TO GIVE AN OPINION, I GUESS, THAT ANOTHER - -  IN OTHER CASES INCLUDING YOURS, THEY WERE NEGLIGENT IN THE WAY THEY TREATED THEIR ANIMALS.

     MS. PATRICE:  NO, THEY HAVE STIPULATED THEY ARE NOT GOING TO UTILIZE MY CASE OR ANYTHING ABOUT MY CASE; PLUS THE FACT THEY HAVE THREE BOXES OF MY CIVIL SUIT.  THEY ARE GOING AFTER THIS SO THEY CAN HARASS ME.  IT WAS IN THE PAST.  IT'S OVER.  IT'S GONE AND DONE WITH. 

     THE COURT:  WERE YOU SUCCESSFUL?

     MS. PATRICE:  IT WAS SETTLED.  I CONSIDER MYSELF SUCCESSFUL.  I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS.  THIS IS THEIR BAD FAITH WAY OF TRYING TO GET AT ME.

     THE COURT:  MS. SCHNEIDER, WHAT DO YOU THINK?  SHALL I TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT WHAT YOU HAVE?

     MS. SCHNEIDER:  YOU CAN, IF YOU LIKE.

     THE COURT:  I MAY FIND IN IN-CAMERA HEARING THERE IS NOTHING THEY ARE ENTITLED TO.

     MS. REAGAN:  I AM WILLING TO ACCEPT YOUR DECISION.  I THINK YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE IN THERE THAT IS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE.

     THE COURT:  AND WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR SPECIFICALLY SO YOU COULD HELP THE COURT?  WHAT - -

     MS. REAGAN:  I'M LOOKING FOR ANYTHING THAT WOULD REFLECT EITHER INCONSISTENT OPINIONS OR OPINIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE OF DR. GRANT AS WELL AS ANY STATEMENTS WHICH WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD AND THAT IS SIMPLY ALL I AM LOOKING FOR, YOUR HONOR.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE THAT ENCOMPASSES THAT.

     THE COURT:  WHY DON'T WE HAVE MS. SCHNEIDER AND THE COURT REPORTER COME INTO MY CHAMBERS.

          (PROCEEDING HAD IN CHAMBERS, NOT TRANSCRIBED.)

     THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  ON THE BLUESTONE MATTER, MR. NEWMAN IS HERE.

     MS. NEWMAN:  ROBERT NEWMAN FOR THE PLAINTIFF, JOINING YOU RATHER LATE.

     THE COURT:  YES.  WE HAVE A NEW PERSON ON BOARD.  OTHER APPEARANCES, PLEASE.

     MS. REAGAN:  ELAINE REAGAN FOR THE DEFENDANT BERGSTROM AND ALL CARE.

     MS. SCHNEIDER: LINDA SCHNEIDER FOR THE VETERINARY MEDICAL BOARD.

     THE COURT:  THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE PRESENCE OF JOANA PATRICE.

     MR. NEWMAN, WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED YOU HAVE WITHDRAWN THE NAME OF JOANA PATRICE AS A POTENTIAL WITNESS.

     MR. NEWMAN:  WHAT I OFFERED TO DO WAS STIPULATE TO NOT CALL MS. PATRICE AS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE NOR TO ATTEMPT TO USE HER COMPLAINTS TO THE VETERINARY MEDICAL BOARD FOR ANY PURPOSE.  SO YES.

     THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  SO YOUR INVOLVEMENT SHOULD BE OVER.  I AM GOING TO RETURN THE WRITTEN DECLARATION IN THIS MATTER, RIGHT?

     MS. REAGAN:  THAT INCLUDES MY RECORDS, YOUR HONOR, AND MY FILE.

     THE COURT:  I AM GOING TO MAKE SOME RULINGS ON THAT.  MADAM BAILIFF, WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GIVE THESE TO MS. PATRICE.

     MS. PATRICE:  THAT MEANS THEY WILL NOT HARASS ME WITH ANY FURTHER DEPOSITIONS?

     THE COURT:  MS. PATRICE, I CAN'T CONTROL WHAT THEY DO AND IF THEY TAKE SOME ACTION AND YOU FEEL THAT YOU'RE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY, YOU HAVE TO BRING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT WITH SOME KIND OF MOTION, IF YOU FEEL IT'S NECESSARY.

     MS. PATRICE:  I WILL DO THAT.

     THE COURT:  LET ME INDICATE TO ALL COUNSEL WE HAVE REVIEWED CERTAIN EXHIBITS PERTAINING TO OPINIONS MADE BY VETERINARIANS IN THE REVIEW OF MISS PATRICE'S CLAIM AND THE COURT REVIEWED THEM ON THE REQUEST OF MISS REAGAN TO DETERMINE IF ANY OF THESE REPORTS WERE INCONSISTENT WITH DR. GRANT'S EVALUATION AND HIS OPINION THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE IN THE PATRICE MATTER AND I BELIEVE ALSO COUNSEL ASKED ME TO REVIEW IF THERE WERE ANY EXPERT OPINIONS REGARDING FALSE ADVERTISING.

     THE COURT IN REVIEWING THE RECORDS DOES BELIEVE THAT THE REPORTS OF DR. LISA ALEXANDER WHICH WERE EXHIBITS 19 AND 21, WHILE INCONCLUSIVE, APPEAR TO DRAW THE CONCLUSION THAT NEGLIGENCE WAS INVOLVED.  NOT TOTALLY, BUT THERE IS ENOUGH THERE THAT I THINK IT'S RELEVANT AND THEY SHOULD BE RELEASED TO THE DEFENSE.  AND I SUPPOSE SINCE THE DEFENSE IS GETTING IT, THE DEFENSE SHOULD MAKE A COPY AVAILABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF.

     MS. REAGAN:  CERTAINLY.

     THE COURT:  IT STATES, FOR THE RECORD, THE OTHER RECORDS THE COURT REVIEWED WERE VERY CRITICAL OF ALL CARE ANIMAL HOSPITAL AND CONFIRMED IN SOME INSTANCES EVEN WITH MORE CLARITY THEIR FEELING THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE IN THE CARE OF THE ANIMAL RUSTY IN THE PATRICE CLAIM.  AL RIGHT.  SO HAVING SAID ALL THAT, I BELIEVE WE ARE DONE.  YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE AVAILABLE THOSE OR NO.

     WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE HEARD, MS. SCHNEIDER?

     MS. SCHNEIDER:  I WOULD, YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU.  I WOULD LIKE TO SAY A COUPLE THINGS.  NUMBER ONE, THE FACT THAT A DIFFERENT EXPERT CAME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAN DR. GRANT, I DO NOT BELIEVE IS A REFLECTION ON HIS CREDIBILITY, ONLY A DIFFERENCE OF EXPERT OPINION.  NUMBER 2, THE COURT HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY FACT IN WHICH DOCTOR ALEXANDER WAS IN ANY WAY CRITICAL OF DR. GRANT OR HIS OPINIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT HE STATED IN HIS REPORT; AGAIN, NOT A REFLECTION OF HIS CREDIBILITY.

     NUMBER THREE, IF THE COURT BELIEVES THERE IS SOME RELEVANCE IN THESE REPORTS IN RELATION TO DR. GRANT'S CREDIBILITY, THEN I BELIEVE THE COURT SHOULD WEIGH   UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTIONS 1040(B)(2) WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN THIS LITIGATION BEFORE THE COURT TO RELEASE THESE REPORTS TO THE DEFENSE AND BY RELEASING THEM TO THE DEFENSE, TO THE PUBLIC, IN COMPARISON TO THE INTERESTS OF THE BOARD IN KEEPING THESE MATTERS PRIVATE AS PART OF ITS INVESTIGATION.

     THE COURT:  AND YOU'RE REFERRING TO ME TO 1040(B)(2)?

     MS. SCHNEIDER:  CORRECT, YOUR HONOR, OR COULD IT BE (2)(B). I HAVE IT BACKWARDS.

     THE COURT:  IN OTHER WORDS, I AM NOT CERTAIN HOW THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO USE THIS.  I SUPPOSE THERE COULD BE A SCENARIO WITH THE PLAINTIFF BECAUSE DR. GRANT  IN SOME FASHION IF IT'S ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL COULD FORM AN OPINION THAT IN THE CARE OF ANOTHER ANIMAL THIS FACILITY WAS NEGLIGENT AND THEN DEFENSE COUNSEL WOULD BE ABLE, SHOULD BE ABLE TO THEN PUT IN EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE OTHER OPINIONS THAT SAID THAT THE CARE OF THIS ANIMAL WAS NOT NEGLIGENT.  IT'S RELEVANT AND IT IS NECESSARILY IMPEACHMENT, BUT IT'S CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF A DIFFERENT OPINION.

      BUT I WILL RELOOK AT IT BECAUSE THE COURT HAS NOT REVIEWED YOUR OBJECTIONS TO RELEASING THIS EVIDENCE AT ALL, SO BEFORE I ORDER YOU TO RELEASE IT, WHAT IS THE TIMING ON THIS.

     SHE HAS TO COME FROM SAN DIEGO.

     MS. REAGAN:  YOUR HONOR CAN ISSUE A MINUTE ORDER AND NOT REQUIRE HER TO COME BACK.

     THE COURT:  AND SHE WOULD JUST MAIL IT TO YOU OR FAX IT?

     MS. REAGAN:  THAT WOULD BE SATISFACTORY.

     THE COURT:  WANT TO DO THAT AND I AM LOOKING AT YOUR POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AGAIN TO SEE IF I AM OVERREACHING BY ORDERING THESE REPORTS RELEASED.  MS. NEWMAN.

     MR. NEWMAN:  JUST BRIEFLY.  IF IN FACT THE COURT IS INCLINED TO RELEASE DR. ALEXANDER'S REPORT FOR THE VERY PURPOSE THAT THE COURT JUST MENTIONED, THAT SCENARIO THE COURT MENTIONED WHERE DR,. GRANT IS CALLED AS AN EXPERT, SHOULDN'T THE COURT ALSO RELEASE ANY REPORTS THAT SUPPORT HIS CONCLUSIONS AND I BELIEVE THE COURT ALSO INDICATED, GO EVEN FARTHER THAN HIS DID?

     THE COURT:  PROBABLY.  HOW ARE THESE GOING TO BE RELEVANT IN THE TRIAL OF THIS MATTER?

     MR. NEWMAN:  I CAN'T IMAGINE.  YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK MS. REAGAN.

     MS. REAGAN:  THEY WILL  BE RELEVANT IF DR. GRANT GETS ON THE STAND AND TESTIFIED ABOUT THE PATTERN AND PRACTICE OF FRAUD, NEGLIGENCE, INCOMPETENT TREATMENT OF THOSE TYPES OF ISSUES.  IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING MR. NEWMAN INTENDS TO PUT ON THAT KIND OF CASE.  I THINK WE ARE CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO PREPARE OUR DEFENSE FOR THAT.

     IF THE COURT IS CONCERNED ABOUT PRIVACY ISSUES AND WISHES TO PROVIDE A PROTECTIVE ORDER SO WE CAN NOT RELEASE THESE RECORDS TO ANYONE OTHER THAN ATTORNEYS OR EXPERTS AND THE PARTIES AND THE PARTIES WOULD BE BOUND BY THE SAME PROTECTIVE ORDER, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO STIPULATE TO THAT.

     THE COURT:  WOULD THAT SATISFY YOU?

     MS. SCHNEIDER:  NO, YOUR HONOR.

     MR. NEWMAN:  SHE IS HONEST, YOUR HONOR.

     THE COURT:  IT'LL TAKE THE MATTER, BUT COULD YOU GIVE THE BULK OF THOSE DOCUMENTS AGAIN TO THE BAILIFF.  I WANT TO REVIEW THE NAMES SO I CAN MAKE IT CLEAR.  A COUPLE OF THESE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY BEARING AT ALL, BUT A COUPLE WENT THE OTHER WAY.

     IF I AM GOING TO RELEASE THEM, I SHOULD RELEASE THE ONES THAT FAVOR HIS OPINION. 

     MR. NEWMAN:  WOULD THE COURT ALSO, YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS SO THAT WE DON'T RUN INTO A PROBLEM DOWN THE ROAD, IF THE COURT ULTIMATELY MAKES AN ORDER TO RELEASE RECORDS, PERHAPS MS. REAGAN'S SUGGESTION THAT A PROTECTIVE ORDER BE PUT IN PLACE BY THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THESE RECORDS BE LIMITED ONLY TO COUNSEL AND/OR THEIR EXPERTS AND NOT DISTRIBUTED, IF THE COURT THINKS THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

     MS. REAGAN:  AND NOT TO BE USED IN ANY OTHER MATTER.

     THE COURT:  IF YOU WOULD, HAND THAT TO THE BAILIFF.  THANK YOU FOR COMING IN.  WE WILL LET YOU KNOW IN A MINUTE ORDER.  THANK YOU.  HAVE A GOOD HOLIDAY.

                 (END OF PROCEEDINGS.)