EXHIBIT A

PLAINTIFF SPACECON'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT RICHARD BENSINGER'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TANGIBLE THINGS

KRISTEN L. MIX, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Spacecon Specialty Contractors, LLC ("Spacecon"), by and through its attorneys, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to Defendant Richard Bensinger's Request for Production of Documents and Tangible Things, dated November 9, 2009, as follows:

INTRODUCTION

The documents supplied in response to Defendant Richard Bensinger's Request for Production of Documents and Tangible Things ("Responses") include those responsive documents within Spacecon's possession, custody and/or control. These Responses represent those documents available at this time, and Spacecon specifically reserves the right to supplement these Responses if and when additional responsive documents become available. The word usage and sentence structure in these Responses are those of the attorneys who prepared the Responses.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. These Responses and objections are made solely for purposes of this action.

2. The Responses include documents presently known and available to Spacecon. Discovery is still ongoing, and Spacecon reserves the right to supplement these responses with additional documents and/or to introduce such documents at trial.

3. All appropriate objections and grounds are hereby reserved and may be interposed at trial regarding the introduction into evidence of any of the documents produced as part of Spacecon's Responses. More particularly, each document produced is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility and any and all other objections or grounds that would require exclusion of a document offered in Court.

4. Spacecon's Response or objection to any request for production, or part thereof, is not an admission that any fact set forth in, or assumed by, such request for production exists.

5. Spacecon's Response to part or all of any request for production is not a waiver of any objection to any part, or to all, of any request for production.

6. Spacecon objects to all of the requests for production to the extent they call for the production of information and/or documentation protected from discovery by attorney-client privilege, accountant-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine or any other applicable privilege.

7. Spacecon objects to all of the requests for production to the extent they seek documents that are not relevant to the specific issues raised by the claims and defenses asserted in this action or are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

8. Spacecon objects to all of the requests for production on the grounds they are overly broad and are unduly burdensome.

9. Spacecon generally objects to Plaintiffs requests for production to the extent that they seek documents which constitute or contain trade secrets or other confidential and/or proprietary research, personnel, development or commercial information. Such documents will only be produced pursuant to a controlling agreement and/or protective order governing documents containing confidential information.

10. At the date of these Responses, Defendant has not filed an Answer to the Complaint that asserts his defenses and affirmative defenses. Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion raises only legal arguments, which, at best, provide some guidance as to factual issues that are likely to be relevant to the case. Spacecon does not yet have access to the film, the contents of which constitute the alleged libel ("Film"), and has knowledge of those contents based only on the recollections of individuals who attended the screening of the Film in March 2009. Based on the information currently available to Spacecon, the Film asserts that (1) Spacecon routinely has used one or more "labor brokers" to provide immigrant, but not illegal, laborers on many if not all of its projects; (2) Spacecon does so knowing that these immigrant laborers have been hired based on false promises regarding available work, high pay levels, living conditions and other work-related facts and that the workers will be unpaid or underpaid, will not be covered by workers' compensation insurance, and if paid, will be paid in cash and without the legally required withholding and payment of employment taxes; (3) Spacecon routinely misclassifies many, if not all, of its craft workers as independent contractors, for whom it does not purchase workers' compensation insurance and whom it pays without withholding or paying employment taxes; (4) Spacecon takes the actions described in items 1 through 3 above, some of which constitute criminal insurance fraud and tax evasion, in order to lower its labor costs for purposes of submitting low bids to win work and increase its profits; and (5) Spacecon took these actions in winning many projects, including specifically, the Four Seasons and Spire projects in Denver. Communications from Defendant's counsel have indicated that Defendant will assert the defense of truth of the Film and associated promotional posters. Defendant's motion to dismiss indicates that facts relating to the issues of whether the Film is part of a "labor dispute" within the meaning of federal labor law and whether the Film pertains to a matter of "public concern" within the meaning of Colorado law will be relevant in this case. Beyond those issues and the issue of damages, Spacecon is currently unaware of other issues to which Defendant might validly direct its discovery. It is based upon this current understanding that Spacecon responds to Defendant's requests for production.

11. Disclosure of documents identified as "confidential" or "highly confidential" is made subject to the provisions of any protective order entered by the Court or any agreement between the Parties in addition to or in the absence of such Court order, which governs the use of confidential documents. By submitting these Responses and producing documents related to these Responses, Spacecon in no way waives any objection that it may have with respect to the use or disclosure of confidential information.

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

1. All DOCUMENTS that support, refer or relate to any and all allegations in YOUR Complaint.

RESPONSE:

Documents supporting, referring or relating to factual allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 9 of the Complaint are included among those documents produced in response to Request No. 4.

Documents supporting, referring or relating to factual allegations in Paragraphs 10 through 15 of the Complaint are presumably in the possession, custody or control of Defendant Richard Bensinger. Spacecon currently has no such documents.

Documents supporting, referring or relating to factual allegations in Paragraphs 16 through 19 of the Complaint are presumably in the possession, custody or control of Defendant Richard Bensinger. The only such document in Spacecon's possession, custody or control is the invitation to the March "pre-screening" of the Film, which Spacecon knows to be in Defendant's possession. An image of Spacecon's copy of the invitation is included in the documents transmitted with this Response.

Documents supporting, referring or relating to factual allegations in Paragraphs 20 through 23 of the Complaint are presumably in the possession, custody or control of Defendant Richard Bensinger. The only such document in Spacecon's possession, custody or control is the poster advertising the March "pre-screening" of the Film, which Spacecon knows to be in Defendant's possession. An image of Spacecon's copy of the poster is included in the documents transmitted with this Response.

Documents supporting, referring or relating to factual allegations in Paragraphs 24 through 28 of the Complaint, including principally the Film itself, are presumably in the possession, custody or control of Defendant Richard Bensinger. Spacecon is currently not in possession, custody, or control of such documents.

Documents supporting, referring or relating to factual allegations in Paragraphs 29 through 32 of the Complaint are presumably in the possession, custody or control of Defendant Richard Bensinger. Documents in Spacecon's possession custody or control include correspondence between Defendant and Spacecon, including the answers to defendant's questions, copies of which are included in the documents transmitted with this response.

Documents supporting, referring or relating to factual allegations in Paragraphs 33 through 36 of the Complaint are presumably in the possession, custody or control of Defendant Richard Bensinger. At present, Spacecon has no such documents in its possession, custody or control.

Factual allegations of the remaining paragraphs of the Complaint, comprising the Claim For Relief, are summaries and/or derivative of the factual allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 37, and documents responsive to this request are described above.

2. All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to YOUR use of labor brokers and/or subcontractors within the past four years, including folders (e.g., Leno folder), proposals, contracts, schedules, license requirements, instructions and/or training requirements, invoices, retentions, workers compensation and/or liability insurance and/or health insurance policies and/or requirements, method, manner and/or amount of payments, safety meeting reports and sign in sheets, time cards, work sign in sheets, immigration status, cost tracking memos, reports and/or analysis, confirmation of hours worked reports and/or analysis, accounting records, independent contractor and/or labor broker audits and/or assessment criteria, cost codes, expense reports, expense receipts and/or invoices, profit reports and/or analysis, cost savings reports and/or analysis, work injury reports and analysis, payroll conversion reports and/or analysis, subcontractor and/or labor broker approval policies and/or procedures, independent contractor reports and/or analysis, IRS Forms SS-8.

RESPONSE:

Spacecon understands the term "labor broker" to mean an individual or other entity that enters into a contract or other similar form of engagement with another entity ("contractor"), by which the "labor broker" employs individuals and makes their services available to the contractor (Spacecon in this case), such that the workers whose services are provided by the "labor broker" are never on the payroll of the contractor and remain employees of the "labor broker." To the extent that this request seeks documents related to subcontractors or other entities "utilized" by Spacecon that are not providing services of the type described as those of a "labor broker" above, Spacecon objects that such entities and any documents that refer or relate to such entities are irrelevant to the issues in this case and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Spacecon understands that for each specific type or description of document listed in this Request (e.g. "folders ... proposals, contracts, schedules, ... method, manner and/or amount of payments ... immigration status, cost tracking memos,... profit reports and/or analysis ... patrol conversion reports ... IRS Forms SS-8"), the intent is that a document of that type or description is responsive to this request only if it is about, refers to, is related to, or contains information about the "labor broker," its employees and/or their services to Spacecon. To the extent that this request is intended to apply to any other documents, Spacecon objects that the Request seeks documents that are irrelevant to the issues in this case and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is overly broad and unduly burdensome.

3. All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to YOUR employees within the past four years, including folders (e.g., personnel folder), immigration status, schedules, instructions and/or training requirements, workers compensation and/or liability insurance policies and/or health insurance and/or requirements, method, manner and/or amount of payments, employee benefit plans, summary plan descriptions, safety meeting reports and sign in sheets, time cards, work sign in sheets, cost tracking memos, reports and/or analysis, confirmation of hours worked reports and/or analysis, accounting records, cost codes, expense reports, expense receipts and/or invoices, profit reports and/or analysis, cost savings reports and/or analysis, work injury reports and analysis, workers compensation analysis and reports, payroll reports and/or analysis.

RESPONSE:

The Request that Spacecon produce all documents that "refer or relate" to all its employees over the last four years, November 9, 2005, through November 9, 2009, is extraordinarily broad and vague, and clearly encompasses thousands, if not tens of thousands, of documents that have no conceivable relationship to the issues in this case and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Many of these documents would be duplicative in terms of the information contained. Locating, identifying, assembling, and copying all the documents responsive to this request, as written, would consume hundreds of man-hours of time and cost tens of thousands of dollars or more in wages and other expenses, an amount unjustifiable in light of the minimal benefit and slight if any relevance of most of the information contained in such documents. Accordingly and except as limited below, Spacecon objects that this Request is unduly burdensome and costly and unreasonably duplicative and cumulative.

The only issue concerning Spacecon's employees in this case is whether the Film's allegations (that Spacecon routinely misclassifies its employees as independent contractors and, as a result, fails to provide workers' compensation and/or to withhold and pay employment taxes) are true. Spacecon's payroll records, including W-2 forms and all Form 1099's issued by Spacecon over the four-year period and documentation of Spacecon's workers' compensation policy, will provide all the information relevant to or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case concerning Spacecon's employees. Most of the specific types and descriptions of documents concerning Spacecon employees enumerated in the Request, including documents reflecting immigration status, schedules, instructions and/or training requirements, health insurance and/or requirements, employee benefit plans, summary plan descriptions, safety meeting reports and sign in sheets, time cards, work sign in sheets, cost tracking memos, reports and/or analysis, confirmation of hours worked reports and/or analysis, accounting records, cost codes, expense reports, expense receipts and/or invoices, profit reports and/or analysis, cost savings reports and/or analysis, work injury reports and analysis, workers' compensation analysis and reports, payroll reports and/or analysis, are irrelevant to the issues in this case and are not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and would be unduly burdensome to produce.

Spacecon will produce payroll records, including W-2 forms and all Form 1099's issued by Spacecon over the four year period and documentation of Spacecon's workers' compensation policy. To the extent that the Request seeks additional documents, Spacecon objects to the Request as seeking documents and information neither relevant to the issues nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible in this case, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.

4. All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to the YOUR corporation structure and hierarchy within the past four years, including parent-subsidiary relationships, job positions, titles, and responsibilities, identities of individuals filling such positions.

RESPONSE:

The Request that Spacecon produce all documents that "refer or relate" to its corporate structure and hierarchy over the last four years, November 9, 2005, through November 9, 2009, is extraordinarily broad and vague, and clearly encompasses thousands of documents which have no conceivable relationship to the issues in this case and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Many of these documents would be duplicative in terms of the information contained. Locating, identifying, assembling, and copying all the documents responsive to this request, as written, would consume hundreds of man-hours of time and cost thousands of dollars or more in wages and other expenses, an amount unjustifiable in light of the minimal benefit and slight if any relevance of most of the information contained in such documents. Accordingly and except as limited below, Spacecon objects that this Request is unduly burdensome and costly and unreasonably duplicative and cumulative.

Spacecon is unaware of any issue in this case that involves its corporate hierarchy or its corporate structure and so objects to the Request in its entirety as seeking documents that are not relevant to the issues in this case and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Without waiving its objection, Spacecon will produce documents that demonstrate its current corporate formation and corporate hierarchy.

5. All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to YOUR projects, including the Spire, the Pinnacle Condominiums, Monroe Pointe, Residences at the Little Nell, Four Seasons, Peleton, within the past four years, including bids, proposals to bid, contracts, estimates, employee manning requirements, reports and/or analysis, progress reports and/or analysis, profit reports and/or analysis, schedules, workers compensation and/or liability insurance policies and/or requirements, safety meeting reports and sign in sheets, time cards, work sign in sheets, cost tracking memos, reports and/or analysis, confirmation of hours worked reports and/or analysis, accounting records, cost codes, expense reports, expense receipts and/or invoices, profit reports and/or analysis, cost savings reports and/or analysis, work injury reports and analysis, workers compensation analysis and reports, payroll reports and/or analysis, general contractor communications.

RESPONSE:

The Request that Spacecon produce all documents that "refer or relate" to all its projects over the last four years, November 9, 2005, through November 9, 2009, is extraordinarily broad and vague, and clearly encompasses hundreds of thousands of documents that have no conceivable relationship to the issues in this case and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Spacecon has had in excess of 340 projects in the period covered by the Request. Many of the requested documents would be duplicative in terms of the information contained. Much of the information included in those documents, e.g. bidding and pricing information, is highly confidential and could severely damage Spacecon's ability to compete if that information were to become known to its competitors. Accordingly and except as limited below, Spacecon objects that this Request is unduly burdensome and costly and unreasonably duplicative and cumulative.

The only issue in this case that bears any relationship to any Spacecon project is the issue of whether the allegations made in the Film are true: that (1) Spacecon routinely has used one or more "labor brokers" to provide immigrant, but not illegal, laborers on many if not all of its projects; (2) Spacecon does so knowing that these immigrant laborers have been hired based on false promises regarding available work, high pay levels, living conditions and other work-related facts and that the workers will be unpaid or underpaid, will not be covered by workers' compensation insurance, and if paid, will be paid in cash and without the legally required withholding and payment of employment taxes; (3) Spacecon takes the actions described in items 1 and 2 above in order to lower its labor costs for purposes of submitting low bids to win work and increase its profits; and (4) Spacecon took these actions in winning many projects, including specifically, the Four Seasons and Spire projects in Denver. Accordingly, the only documents responsive to this Request that would be relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence would be those concerning projects on which Spacecon actually utilized a "labor broker." Accordingly, Spacecon objects to the request to the extent that it seeks documents for projects other than those upon which Spacecon engaged or contracted with "labor brokers" on grounds that the Request seeks documents and information that is not relevant to or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible in this case.

Even as to the projects on which Spacecon engaged a "labor broker," only documents that (1) relate to or refer to the "labor broker" and/or its employees, or (2) reflect or relate to the effect of the use of the "labor broker" on the cost of performing the project and/or the bid for the project, would be relevant to the issues in this case or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Spacecon objects to the request to the extent that it seeks documents other than those described above as relevant, on grounds that the Request seeks documents and information that is not relevant to or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible in this case. Spacecon will produce all documents related to its use of a "labor broker' in response to Request No. 1, supra. Spacecon will produce documents relating to the labor costs reflected in the bids for each of the projects on which Spacecon engaged a "labor broker."

6. All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to Spacecon West's Dugway Proving Ground military base project in Utah, including government investigations, personnel files of workers, time cards, work sign in sheets, confirmation of hours worked reports and/or analysis, accounting records, cost codes, expense reports, expense receipts and/or invoices, profit reports and/or analysis, cost savings reports and/or analysis, payroll reports and/or analysis, general contractor communications.

RESPONSE:

Spacecon is unaware of any issue in this case that is related in any way to Spacecon West LLC, a separate corporate entity operating in Utah and not implicated in the Film that is the subject of this case, or to any project that Spacecon West LLC may have performed in Utah. Spacecon had no role or involvement in the Dugway Proving Ground case. Accordingly, Spacecon objects that the Request seeks documents and information that are neither relevant to the issues nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence admissible in this case and that are not within the possession, custody or control of Spacecon. Further, Spacecon objects to this Request on the grounds that this Request is unduly burdensome and vague.

7. All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to complaints or criticisms against YOU and/or YOUR supervisors, including Joe Eiffes, within the last four years, including complaints involving wages, discrimination, working conditions, injuries.

RESPONSE:

The Request that Spacecon produce all documents that "refer or relate" to any complaint or criticism of Spacecon and/or its supervisors, without limitation as to source or subject, over the last four years, November 9, 2005, through November 9, 2009, is extraordinarily broad and vague, and clearly encompasses complaints and criticisms that have no conceivable relationship to the issues in this case, as well as documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Searching for, identifying and assembling all such documents would entail an extraordinarily burdensome and costly exercise involving hundreds of man-hours of effort. To the extent that the Request seeks documents concerning complaints about issues raised in the Film, Spacecon will produce such documents. To the extent that the Request seeks documents about other types of complaints, Spacecon objects that the Request seeks information and documents that are neither relevant to the issues in this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is unduly burdensome and vague. 8. All DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to protests against YOU and/or YOUR supervisors, including Joe Eiffes, within the last four years, including pickets, banners, leaflets, and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and general contractors, construction managers, developers, owners, etc.

RESPONSE:

The Request that Spacecon produce all documents that "refer or relate" to any protests against Spacecon and/or its supervisors, without limitation as to the nature, subject, or source of the protest, over the last four years, November 9, 2005, through November 9, 2009, is extraordinarily broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and clearly encompassing of protests that have no conceivable relationship to the issues in this case, as well as documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Searching for, identifying and assembling all such documents would entail an extraordinarily burdensome and costly exercise involving hundreds of man-hours of effort. To the extent that the Request seeks documents concerning protests about issues raised in the Film, Spacecon will produce such documents. Based on the Defendant's apparent intent to assert that the Film is part of a "labor dispute" within the meaning of the federal labor laws, Spacecon will produce documents relating to actions precipitated by Carpenters Local 55. To the extent that the Request seeks documents beyond those identified as to be produced, Spacecon objects that the Request seeks inforrnation and documents that are neither relevant to the issues nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is unduly burdensome and vague.

9. To the extent, not already produced, all DOCUMENTS that refer or relate to the film Looking the Other Way: Benefiting From Misery, including communications with anyone associated with the film.

RESPONSE:

Spacecon will produce any responsive documents in its possession, custody or control.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 21st day of December, 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF SPACECON'S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT RICHARD BENSINGER'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TANGIBLE THINGS was served via electronic and overnight mail to the following: