Specifically, Mr.

Moses, through counsel, stated: "[u]pon receiving

confirmation that Traton is willing to dialogue with Chris [Mr. Moses], he
[Mr. Moses] has agreed to dismiss the action without prejudice."30 No other
demands were made in conjunction with Mr. Moses' request for a
reasonable dialogue.

30
Admitted by Defendant, Traton's Second Admissions, ¶ 153.
Despite Mr. Moses' generous offer, Traton refused to rationally discuss this
matter with Mr. Moses, giving as its reason that it did not want "word to
get around that all you have to do is file a lawsuit to get the head man at
Traton to meet with you . . . ."31

31
Email Exchange between Traton Officers, December 8, 2005, Exhibit P.
Upon discovering additional facts, Mr. Moses filed a Motion to Add
Defendants and Amend Its Complaint ("Motion to Add Defendants").32

32
Plaintiff's Motion to Add Defendants and Amend Its Complaint, and Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion, Exhibit Q.
The Supplemental and Second Amended Complaint, which accompanied
the Motion to Add Defendants, included the following Counts:
(1) Trespass, under O.C.G.A. §§ 51-9-1 and 51-9-3;
(2) Continuing Trespass, under O.C.G.A. § 51-9-6;
(3) Liability for Torts of Independent Employee, under O.C.G.A. §
51-2-4;
(4) Liability for Torts of Contractors, under O.C.G.A. § 51-2-5;
(5) Civil Conspiracy;
(6) Breach of Contract;
(7) Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
(8) Officers' Personal Liability for Corporate Action;
(9) Litigation Expenses, under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11; and
(10) Punitive Damages, under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1.33

33
Supplemental and Second Amended Complaint, Exhibit R.
Despite the ongoing discovery, in yet another effort to resolve this without
further escalating costs, Mr. Moses presented his third settlement offer to
Traton on February 13, 2006.34

34
February 13, 2006, Email from Mr. Moses to Traton, Exhibit S.
In that offer, Mr. Moses requested the following:
(1) Face-to-face meeting with Traton officers (Bill Poston, Dale
Bercher, Millburn Poston, etc.);
(2) Admission of wrong by Traton, and issue written apology to
Mr. Moses;
(3) Repair of damaged yard to Mr. Moses' satisfaction;
(4) Promise to refrain from future damage;
(5) Promise to fix future damage that can be attributed to Traton;
and
(6) Payment of out-of-pocket litigation expenses (~$500) (but not
any costs for attorney time).35

35
February 13, 2006, Email from Mr. Moses to Traton.
Mr. Moses' third offer was rejected.36

36
February 27, 2006, Email from Traton to Mr. Moses, Exhibit T.
Thus, rather than rationally dialoguing with Mr. Moses, Traton deliberately
chose to continue with discovery, which Traton certified would cost an
estimated $2,950,000.00.37

37
Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Add Defendants and Amend Complaint, pp. 2-3 (Traton's attorneys certified to this
Court that compliance with discovery was "estimated to cost $2,950,000.00"), Exhibit U.