|Home >Camera Enforcement > Revenue from Cameras > ATS Loses Traffic Camera Court Battle Against Redflex|
ATTY: Mr Burke is a lawyer [who]... is writing this letter on behalf of Redflex to the chief procurement officer of Arizona DPS, is he not?The intense litigation has imposed a heavy toll on both firms since ATS filed suit in November 2008. Redflex reported that the case was the primary reason the company's legal bills had reached $6.2 million for the year. Redflex opened a retaliatory Lanham Act case against ATS in which trial is pending. US District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton had scheduled a pretrial conference for June 28, but ATS succeeded in delaying the move until Bolton rules on a motion to disqualify the Redflex law firm, Greenberg Traurig, because it has inside information on ATS operations from prior legal work. Redflex paid Greenberg more than $1 million for its help in defeating ATS.
ATTY: Let's turn to page four of this letter. Now the first thing he says here is: 'Redflex has the intention and ability to fulfill this contract with certified equipment. The Multanova and AGD-340 are now FCC certified.' You see that?
FINLEY: Um, yeah.
ATTY: We know now by the date of this letter, August 12, 2008, certainly the AGD-340 was certified but the Multanova DRS-3 was not certified, was it?
FINLEY: But I'm not sure when we found that out.
ATTY: Excuse me ma'am, that's not my question. We know to this good day -- Mr Carpinteri testified for us -- that the DRS was never certified and it's still not certified. Do you recall his testimony about that?
FINLEY: Um, yeah.
ATTY: Your lawyer, Mr. Burke, here tells the DPS that the Multanova was FCC certified, does he not, ma'am?
FINLEY: That's what he says.
Front Page | Get Updates |
Site Map |
News Archive |
TheNewspaper.com: Driving politics