Discussion of footnote handling in a joinder motion and University of Utah signature block

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 19 A. The footnote -- one of the problems with the the Word processing program to drop a star footnote is it requires, under the word programing, you have to to have different sections in the document because otherwise it would be footnote -- let's see. Yes, so there was already a footnote 1 on the joinder motion and so, what happens with footnotes is if you identify it as footnote, put in a footnote where the University of Utah signature block is, for example, it becomes footnote 2, so then you have to create a different section and then once you have a different section you can establish a new number and a new nomenclature instead of numbers. You can have the asterisk, and so somehow with the signature block getting reprocessed here, that star footnote dropped off and within I think -- I think it was about three days, I realized that the star footnote had dropped off, so I filed a corrected pleading with the -- with the new star footnote on it. Q. You would agree with me that a fair-minded, a reasonable reader looking at the signature block on the as filed original document, could conclude that the University of Utah was somehow endorsing or standing behind this pleading? A. I don't think that's quite fair. I think the ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021842