Sri McCam ri Q. August 16, 2017 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
|
|
- Avis O’Brien’
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Sri McCam ri Q ae ga I Se 9 al McCambrid J e Sin g er &Mahone Y V Illinois I Michigan I Missouri I New Jersey I New York I Pennsylvania I 'Texas Jennifer L. Budner Direct (212) jbudnernsmsm.com August 16, 2017 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Hon. Manual J. Mendez Supreme Court, New York County 71 Thomas Street, Room 210 New York, NY Dear Justice Mendez: Re: Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County Roger J. Carilli (Index No /2015) Thomas Gallen (Index No /2015) Ernest Gilbert (Index No /2015) Defendant, Weil-McLain, by and through its attorneys, moves this Court for the entry of an order in limine base on the issues set forth below: GENERAL MOTION IN LIMINE Defendant Weil-McLain moves to preclude plaintiffs, plaintiffs' counsel, their witnesses. their employees and/or their agents from mentioning, referring to, or otherwise attempting to convey before the jury, or the venire, at any time during these proceedings, the subject matter of any of the following: 1. That this defendant, it agents or employees, is insured against liability for incidents alleged in plaintiff's complaint, for the reason that such evidence is not relevant to any issue in this lawsuit and the introduction of this evidence would be unduly prejudicial to this defendant. 2. That this defendant made any offer to settle with plaintiffs or that settlement negotiations were entered into or conducted between the parties. Such evidence is not relevant to any of the issues in this lawsuit. Settlement offers and/or negotiations do not constitute any admission on the part of this defendant and would tend to confuse the jury. Therefore, the introduction of such evidence would be unduly prejudicial to this defendant. 850 Third Avenue ~ Suite ~ New York, NY ~ T: (212) fi51.750q ~ F: (212)
2 3. The use of any prior deposition testimony or trial testimony which has not been stipulated to by this defendant. Weil-McLain objects to any such prior testimony as inadmissible hearsay, and also objects to use of any testimony where Weil-McLain was not a party to that litigation; Weil-McLain was not in privity with any parties present during the prior testimony; and it does not have a predecessor-in-interest who was present during the prior testimony and had a similar motive to develop the witnesses testimony; it was not present or represented at the prior testimony; and/or the witness has not been shown to be unavailable. Further, the issues involved in the prior depositions and trial testimony are not those which concern Weil-McLain in this litigation and will only serve to confuse the trier of fact. As such, it would be unfair and unduly prejudicial to admit this hearsay testimony when Weil-McLain did not have any opportunity to cross examine the witness. Therefore, such deposition or trial testimony should not be utilized at trial or admitted into evidence. 4. Any reference to Weil-McLain as an Asbestos Company or, in general, as a member of the "Asbestos Industry." Use of the terms Asbestos Company(ies) or "Asbestos Industry" is an effort to impose the knowledge of other companies on Weil-McLain and to inaccurately represent the nature of Weil-McLain s business to the jury. Any such representation is prejudicial and without probative value, and will only confuse the jury on the ultimate issue of whether the deceased inhaled asbestos dust from a Weil-McLain product, causing his illness. Therefore, Plaintiff should be barred from the use of these terms at trial. 5. Any mention of prior jury trial verdicts or other lawsuits. 6. Any and all references that the plaintiff and/or the deceased in this case is a victim or an asbestos victim. 7. Any and all reference to defense counsel as asbestos defense lawyers. 8. Any reference to the presence or use of any product containing asbestos on any job where deceased worked unless the evidence has been produced or provided during discovery and establishes that deceased used or was exposed to a product of defendant, that the product contained asbestos, that the asbestos-containing product emitted asbestos dust, that deceased inhaled asbestos dust which came from defendant s product, and that this caused his illness. 9. Any reference or comment by counsel at any time during voir dire or during the trial regarding the amount of money or time spent by the defendant in the defense of this matter, including attorney time and expenses and expert witness time and expenses. 10. Any statement that plaintiff s recovery will be shared with their attorneys, or that they have incurred expenses in bringing this lawsuit. 11. Any reference to any other lawsuit in which this defendant may have been involved or is involved. 12. Any statements or arguments which encourage or attempt to place the jurors in the place of the plaintiff, plaintiff s decedent, plaintiff s family members or plaintiff s friends. Page 2 of 7
3 13. Any references, statements or arguments that the jury should attempt to send defendant a message. 14. Any references, statements or arguments concerning personal beliefs or past experiences of counsel. 15. Any references, statements or arguments that the Defendant has to pay its fair share or a debt. 16. Any references, statements or arguments that the family members of the plaintiff or plaintiff s decedent suffer pain or mental anguish. 17. Any references, statements or arguments that this motion has been filed, or to any ruling by the Court in response to this motion, suggesting or implying to the jury that Weil- McLain has moved to prohibit proof or that the Court has excluded proof of any particular matters. 18. Requesting defendant s counsel to produce any information or documents in its file in front of the jury. 19. Any comment by counsel for plaintiff that he knows or has learned from his past experience that this defendant or other defendants are unwilling to fully cooperate with discovery, or any other comment regarding the manner in which this defendant may have defended lawsuits in the past based upon the personal knowledge of counsel for Plaintiff. Further, any comment that defendant has hidden documents or other evidence from the plaintiff as counsel for plaintiff knew they would. 20. Any reference to any prior personal experience of any of the attorneys for the plaintiff which relate to physical injuries or illnesses or their treatment. 21. Any statement by counsel at any time during the course of this trial that the attorneys for the defendant or the experts retained by the defendant to testify in this cause have collaborated or conspired with attorneys or experts who represent or are associated with other defendants with respect to this case or any other case. Specifically, this motion is intended to include any reference to the exchange of depositions or any other activities which tend to create an image of a united industry agent against a single plaintiff in this cause. Any reference to these particular subjects is irrelevant, and is of such an inflammatory nature that to convey this information to the jury would be highly improper and prejudicial to the defendant. 22. That the plaintiff not mention or state to the jury what they have been told by a doctor, osteopath, chiropractor, or medical witness as to plaintiff s respective physical conditions or disabilities or the decedent s respective physical conditions or disabilities. Such statements are both prejudicial and cumulative. In addition, such statements constitute hearsay and are inadmissible. Page 3 of 7
4 23. Any reference by plaintiff s counsel to defendant s counsel as insurance lawyer, or any reference to adjusters, claims handlers, or any similar reference which would imply or suggest to the jury that the defendant is covered by liability insurance, either in whole or in part. 24. That defendant has failed to call any particular witness available equally to all parties herein through the subpoena process. 25. That defendant is or is not covered by liability insurance of any kind. 26. Any reference to profits being made at the expense of others, or without regard to the safety of welfare of others or any similar appeal to sympathy, bias or prejudice. 27. Any reference to the wealth, power, corporate size or assets of Weil-McLain which would suggest to the jury that the jury ought to compare the relative wealth of the plaintiff and defendant in answering the jury questions. 28. That plaintiff and counsel for plaintiff make no reference that since this defendant is a company, it is without a heart and soul, or comment as to its financial capacity, or make any other reference implying that this defendant, as a company, has any less rights under the law than a natural person. The fact that defendant is not a natural persons is totally irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. Furthermore, any reference to the fact that it is a financially solvent entity, or any related inference is not only irrelevant, but is prejudicial and would unduly confuse the jury and is therefore inadmissible. 29. That no mention be made or testimony given concerning the future consequences of any injury or disease in the absence of medical testimony that in reasonable medical probability the anticipated conditions will occur. 30. That any friend, relative, co-worker or other person who had been exposed to asbestos suffered any injury as a result of said exposure or died from an illness related to said exposure. 31. That defendants or any other companies have settled prior asbestos-related claims. 32. That juries in prior asbestos cases have awarded damages to any plaintiff, or the size of the awards. 33. That the jury should or would set the safety standards in New York City, or any other area. 34. Any reference to a conspiracy or a conspiracy of silence or other industry wide collusion or attempt to hide evidence, unless there is an allegation in the Complaint and proof of same against the defendant. 35. Any reference or suggestion that this defendant has taken any remedial measures with respect to defendant s product, marketing, warnings or instructions, be it in the form of Page 4 of 7
5 alterations, changes or otherwise, unless and until it is first sufficiently demonstrated outside the presence or hearing of the jury that such evidence is admissible for some legitimate purpose other than to prove negligence or culpable conduct on the part of this defendant. 36. That plaintiff has been told anything by an expert concerning any matter, for the reason that such revelation would be hearsay, not subject to proper cross-examination by Defendant s counsel, and for the further reason that such expert testimony would not be admissible without a proper predicate concerning the expert s qualifications and abilities to give such testimony. 37. Any settlement, offer of settlement, which has been made or any reference to the fact that such lawsuit could not be or was not settled, compromised or resolved, or that Weil- McLain never made a settlement offer, including any comments that some cases have to be brought to a jury, it was necessary to file this suit, or other similar comments. 38. Weil-McLain additionally moves this Court in limine for an order as follows: a. That each party advise all other parties, at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance, of each witness that the party will call at trial. b. That each party designate documents forty-eight (48) hours prior to seeking to admit the documents into evidence or to elicit testimony for a witness concerning the document, with the exception of documents used for impeachment purposes or for demonstrative purposes. c. That no documents be specifically referred, quoted, or published to the jury until the opposing side has had the opportunity to request a hearing on the admissibility, outside the presence of the jury. d. That each party designate the portion of each deposition seventy-two (72) hours prior to seeking to read the deposition to the jury; that each party designate objections and/or counter-designations to proposed deposition testimony within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter. MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE DOCUMENTS CREATED OR MAINTAINED BY OTHER CORPORATE PARTIES TO THE CURRENT SUIT AS EVIDENCE REFLECTING WEIL MCLAIN S KNOWLEDGE Defendant Weil-McLain moves this Court to prohibit Plaintiffs from asserting, directly or indirectly, through witnesses or exhibits, that documents created, maintained, or circulated in house by other corporations or entities, not published or generally available to the public, can be used to impute knowledge of the contents of same, or of facts stated therein, to Weil-McLain. Weil-McLain requests that Plaintiffs be prohibited from making such assertions and that this Court specifically give a limiting instruction to the jury that these documents may not be used as evidence. Page 5 of 7
6 MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF S FROM CALLING CUMULATIVE / IRRELEVANT EXPERT WITNSSES AT TRIAL Weil-McLain moves to preclude the plaintiff from calling cumulative witnesses to testify at trial. Allowing cumulative testimony will unnecessarily prolong the trial without any corresponding advance. The court has inherent power to limit cumulative evidence. This includes the number of experts that may be called by either party to testify upon a given issue in light of the nature of expert opinion as evidence and of the possibility that the trial may be of undue length if the parties are permitted to call expert witnesses without restriction as to the number called. Irrizary by Velez v. City of N.Y., 95 A.D.2d 713, 713, 464 N.Y.S.2d 5, 6 (1st Dep t 1983). If there is significant overlap between expert testimony but some differences, the best remedy is to limit the subsequent expert s testimony to material not covered by the first witness. Shafran v. St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 264 A.D.2d 553, 557, 694 N.Y.S.2d 642, 645 (1st Dep t 1999). A Court may exclude evidence that is proximately relevant if its probative value is outweighed by the danger that its admission would prolong the trial to an unreasonable extent without any corresponding advance. People v. Davis, 43 N.Y.2d 17, 27, 371 N.E.2d 456, 460 (1977). Further a Court can exclude expert testimony that is not sufficiently relevant. People v. Walker, 156 A.D.2d 271, 271, 548 N.Y.S.2d 661, 662 (1st Dep't 1989). We request that that the Court preclude overlapping expert testimony and limit subsequent expert s testimony to material not covered by the first witness. MOTION IN LIMINE TO PREVENT PLAINTIFFS FROM SUBMITTING MEDICAL BILLS IN EXCESS OF ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID Defendant Weil-McLain moves this Court to preclude Plaintiffs from submitting medical bills in excess of the actual amount paid by Medicare, Medicaid and supplemental insurance for the injuries at issue in this lawsuit. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Weil-McLain respectfully requests that this Court enter an order granting the relief requested herein and granting any other relief as the Court deems appropriate and just. Entry of such order will allow the parties to adequately protect their client s interests at trial. Respectfully, SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD. /s/jennifer L. Budner Jennifer L. Budner cc: (via first class mail) Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. Page 6 of 7
7 700 Broadway New York, NY All Remaining Defense Counsel (via ECF only) Page 7 of 7
) Cause No. 1:14-cv-937-WTL-DML. motions are fully briefed and the Court, being duly advised, resolves them as set forth below.
SCHEIDLER v. STATE OF INDIANA Doc. 88 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION BRENDA LEAR SCHEIDLER, Plaintiff, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Defendant. Cause No. 1:14-cv-937-WTL-DML
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/ :53 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2016 12:53 PM INDEX NO. 190187/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ANGELO C. ABRUZZINO and BARBARA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
LEFORGE v. FEIWELL & HANNOY, P.C. Doc. 129 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION LUDA CHRISTINE HAYWARD LEFORGE, vs. FEIWELL & HANNOY, P.C., Plaintiff, Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL
Case 2:13-cv-01615-MWF-AN Document 112 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1347 Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge Deputy Clerk: Rita Sanchez Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
More informationMISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (St. Louis City)
MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (St. Louis City) DAYNA CRAFT (withdrawn), DEBORAH LARSEN and WENDI ALPER-PRESSMAN, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
More informationCase4:07-cv PJH Document1171 Filed05/29/12 Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case:0-cv-0-PJH Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, No. C 0- PJH v. FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER SAP AG, et al.,
More informationKeith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC
Keith Berkshire Berkshire Law Office, PLLC (a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and:
More informationTIPS ON OFFERING EVIDENCE RELEVANCE
TIPS ON OFFERING EVIDENCE by Curtis E. Shirley RELEVANCE Indiana Evidence Rule 401: Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
More informationRULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003
Article I. General Provisions 101. Scope 102. Purpose and Construction RULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003 Article IV. Relevancy and its Limits 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (ADOPTED 9/4/2012) INDEX ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope... 1 Rule 102 Purpose and Construction... 1 ARTICLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE... 1 Rule 201
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :23 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2015 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 190245/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 STEVEN EDWARDS, v. Plaintiff, A. DESFOSSES, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Steven Edwards is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this
More informationCase: 1:14-cv Document #: 2422 Filed: 04/01/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:64352
Case: 1:14-cv-01748 Document #: 2422 Filed: 04/01/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:64352 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN RE: TESTOSTERONE ) Case No.
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/23/ :40 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 121 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/23/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION NYCAL I.A.S. Part 13 (Mendez, M.) MARIO PICCOLINO and ARCANGELA Index No. 190186/2016 PICCOLINO, Plaintiffs,
More informationRESPONDENT MOTHER'S MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO The People of the State of Colorado in the Interest of Children: Petitioner: And Concerning:, Respondents COURT USE ONLY Attorney for Respondent Mother Douglas
More information2016 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version)
2016 FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) In American trials, complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to ensure that
More informationAARONSON RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 600 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y Luc:
AARONSON RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 600 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016 212 593-6700 Luc: 212 593-6970 Via E-Filing, Regular Mail, and Hand Delivery Hon. Barbara Jaffe, J.S.C.
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/20/ :40 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/20/2016
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/20/2016 1040 AM INDEX NO. 152848/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 6 RECEIVED NYSCEF 05/20/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ZOE DENISON, Plaintiff, INDEX
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. Appellants, Case Nos. 5D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT MARIE LYNN HARRISON AND DEBORAH HARRISON, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationCase5:08-cv PSG Document498 Filed08/15/13 Page1 of 6
Case:0-cv-00-PSG Document Filed0// Page of 0 MICHAEL J. BETTINGER (SBN ) mike.bettinger@klgates.com TIMOTHY P. WALKER (SBN 000) timothy.walker@klgates.com HAROLD H. DAVIS, JR. (SBN ) harold.davis@klgates.com
More informationTRIAL OBJECTIONS. Considerations Effect on the jury Scrutinous Judiciously Effective/Disruptive
TRIAL OBJECTIONS Albert E. Durkin, Esq. Miroballi Durkin & Rudin LLC Considerations Effect on the jury Scrutinous Judiciously Effective/Disruptive Will the answer hurt your case? Protecting the record
More informationDELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
DELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE In American trials, complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to ensure that
More information2011 RULES OF EVIDENCE
2011 RULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version Article I. General Provisions 101. Scope 102. Purpose and Construction Article IV. Relevancy and its Limits 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"
More informationSIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...3 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Title 1, Chapter 38...3 TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I: General Provisions...4 Article IV: Relevancy
More informationDepartment 16 has prepared this document to assist counsel in scheduling motions and reporters in Department 16.
Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse Department: 16 (213) 633-0516 Motions in Department 16 Department 16 has prepared this document to assist counsel in scheduling motions and reporters in Department 16.
More informationOverview of Trial Proceedings Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence
Role of Judge/Jury, Markman Hearings, and Introduction to Evidence July 21, 2016 Drew DeVoogd, Member Patent Trial Proceedings in the United States In patent matters, trials typically occur in the federal
More information: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF DEFENDANT FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL LLC IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S OMNIBUS MOTION
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO GASPAR HERNANDEZ-VEGA Plaintiff, -against- AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 JESSE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. R. SAMUELS, Defendant. Case No.: :-cv-00-sab (PC ORDER REGARDING PARTIES MOTIONS IN LIMINE [ECF Nos. 0 & 0]
More informationALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) PROCEDURES
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) PROCEDURES 00015541-3 Page 1 of Attachment A to Asbestos TDP KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION
More informationIN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH : : : : : : : : : : : :
Gregory J. Sanders, USB No. 2858 Patrick C. Burt, USB No. 11138 David R. Garner, USB No. 16054 KIPP AND CHRISTIAN, P.C. Attorneys for Harmony Home Health 10 Exchange Place, 4 th Floor Salt Lake City, Utah
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ON PARTIES MOTIONS IN LIMINE
MIMMS ET AL. v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. Doc. 219 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ANTHONY MIMMS, M.D., MIMMS FUNCTIONAL REHABILITATION, P.C., v. Plaintiffs, CVS
More informationER 904 is Scary - Five Practice Tips for Using and Opposing ER 904 Submissions Robert Dawson
Top of Form Volume: 39-1 Date: Sep 1 2003 TRIAL NEWS WASHINGTON STATE TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION ER 904 is Scary - Five Practice Tips for Using and Opposing ER 904 Submissions Robert Dawson ER 904 was supposed
More informationFILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 05/06/ :22 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/06/2016
FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 05/06/2016 05:22 PM INDEX NO. 700847/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 59 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/06/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS ----------------------------------------x
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/08/ :05 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 442 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X NYCAL IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION I.A.S Part 13 -----------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationCase 6:13-cv GAP-DAB Document 91 Filed 08/09/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID 3428
Case 6:13-cv-00434-GAP-DAB Document 91 Filed 08/09/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID 3428 D.B., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA - ORLANDO DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA;
More informationMARY MURPHY-CLAGETT, AS : DECOTIIS IN OPPOSITION TO
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE: NEW YORK CITY : INDEX NO.: 190311/2015 ASBESTOS LITIGATION : : This Document Relates To: : : AFFIRMATION OF LEIGH A MARY MURPHY-CLAGETT,
More information#25808-a-LSW 2011 S.D. 89 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA * * * *
-a-lsw 2011 S.D. 89 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ESTATE OF ETHANUEL JAMES HOLZNAGEL, DECEASED, WAYNE D. HOLZNAGEL and PAULA M. HOLZNAGEL, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, and WAYNE D. HOLZNAGEL,
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07) In American trials complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY] [PLAINTIFF], ) CASE NO. ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) PLAINTIFF S MOTIONS IN [DEFENDANT], ) LIMINE ) Defendant. ) MOTIONS Plaintiff moves
More informationCase 1:10-cr RDB Document 85 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:10-cr-00181-RDB Document 85 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * * v. * * THOMAS ANDREWS DRAKE,
More informationIndex. Adjudicative Facts Judicial notice, Administrative Rules Judicial notice,
Index References in this index from 900 to 911 are to sections of the Wisconsin Rules of Evidence, and references from 1 to 33 are to chapters of this book. A Adjudicative Facts Judicial notice, 902.01
More informationEMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE
EMPIRION EVIDENCE ORDINANCE Recognized Objections I. Authority RULE OBJECTION PAGE 001/002 Outside the Scope of the Ordinance 3 II. Rules of Form RULE OBJECTION PAGE RULE OBJECTION PAGE 003 Leading 3 004
More informationAdding a Little Bit of Hollywood to Your Trial
Adding a Little Bit of Hollywood to Your Trial Todd M. Raskin Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A. 34305 Solon Road 100 Franklin s Row Cleveland, OH 44139 (440) 248-7906 traskin@mrrlaw.com Todd M. Raskin
More informationThe Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series
The Civil Action Part 1 of a 4 part series The American civil judicial system is slow, and imperfect, but many times a victim s only recourse in attempting to me made whole after suffering an injury. This
More informationCLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep an open
CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS I. GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep
More informationOklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Rule 101. Scope
Oklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101. Scope These Simplified Federal Rules of Evidence (Mock Trial Version) govern the trial proceedings of the
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/28/ :04 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/28/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/28/2016 05:04 PM INDEX NO. 190293/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/28/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X VINCENT ASCIONE, v. ALCOA,
More informationCASE NUMBER: DIV 71. It appearing that this case is at issue and can be set for trial, it is ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff(s), vs. Defendant(s). / IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: DIV 71 UNIFORM ORDER REGARDING SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL, PRE-TRIAL
More informationNO.: and VS.
NO.: 2011-11182 NORMA L. HINOJOSA, Individually, as IN THE DISTRICT COURT Next Friend of RAMIRO HINOJOSA, Jr., Minor, and as Representative of the Estate of RAMIRO HINOJOSA, Deceased; CINTHYA HINOJOSA,
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Evidence And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question While driving their cars, Paula
More informationHow to Testify. Qualifications for Testimony. Hugo A. Holland, Jr., J.D., CFE Prosecutor, State of Louisiana
How to Testify Qualifications for Testimony Hugo A. Holland, Jr., J.D., CFE Prosecutor, State of Louisiana 2018 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. CPE PIN Instructions 2018 Association of Certified
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION. Case No. 51-
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION Case No. 51-, vs. Plaintiff, Defendants. ORDER SETTING JURY TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO. : Plaintiff : vs. : FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER : Case No. Defendant :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO : Plaintiff : vs. : FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER : Case No. Defendant : This action came before the court at a final pretrial conference held on at a.m./p.m.,
More informationRAWAA FADHEL, as Parent and Next Friend of KAWTHAR O. ALI, a Minor. v. PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
NO. 14-CI-000143 JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT DIVISION NINE (9) HONORABLE JUDITH McDONALD-BURKMAN RAWAA FADHEL, as Parent and Next Friend of KAWTHAR O. ALI, a Minor PLAINTIFF v. PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
More informationLitigation Unveiled Click to edit Master title style
Litigation Unveiled Click to edit Master title style Author and Presenter: Richard E. Mitchell, Esq. Equity Shareholder Chair, Higher Education Practice Group GrayRobinson, P.A. Overview of Topics I. Lawyers
More informationCase 3:14-cv KRG Document Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:14-cv-00125-KRG Document 80 80 Filed 10/26/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GARY EVANS, JR., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-125 v.
More informationEvidence Presented by: Ervin Gonzalez, Esq.
Evidence Presented by: Ervin Gonzalez, Esq. This seminar focuses on the fundamentals of evidence in Florida including documentary evidence, demonstrative evidence, expert testimony, trial objectives and
More informationRule 605. Competency of judge as witness. NC General Statutes - Chapter 8C Article 6 1
Article 6. Witnesses. Rule 601. General rule of competency; disqualification of witness. (a) General rule. Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules. (b) Disqualification
More informationCase 6:18-cr RBD-DCI Document 59 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 393 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Case 6:18-cr-00043-RBD-DCI Document 59 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID 393 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. 6:18-cr-43-Orl-37DCI
More informationSIMMONS HANLY CONROY 51MMONSFIRM.COM A NATIONAL LAW FIRM (800) February 20, 2018 BACKGROUND
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 51MMONSFIRM.COM A NATIONAL LAW FIRM (800) 479-9533 From the desk offames M. framer February 20, 2018 Via NYSCEF & Hand Delivery Hon. Manuel J. Mendez New York City Civil Court, New
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document. Missouri Eastern District Court Case No. 4:09-cv Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v.
PlainSite Legal Document Missouri Eastern District Court Case No. 4:09-cv-01252 Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v. Cassity et al Document 2163 View Document View Docket A joint project of Think
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY. CASE No CR
Terri Wood, OSB # Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 0 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 0 1--1 Attorney for Defendant IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff,
More informationRules of Evidence (Abridged)
Rules of Evidence (Abridged) Article IV: Relevancy and its Limits Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would
More informationPLAINTIFF S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
MCDONALD V. STERN 15CVP-0021 PLAINTIFF S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NO. DESCRIPTION RULING 1 FOR AN ORDER EXCLUDING EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS DEFENDANTS' ADMISSIONS MADE IN RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2006 v No. 263852 Marquette Circuit Court MICHAEL ALBERT JARVI, LC No. 03-040571-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationDefendant's Motion in Limine re Inadmissible Hearsay and Regarding Certain Irrelevant Testimony
Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU 19952002 Court Filings 2000 Trial 1312000 Defendant's Motion in Limine re Inadmissible Hearsay and Regarding Certain Irrelevant Testimony William D. Mason
More informationThinking Evidentially
Thinking Evidentially Writing & Arguing Powerful Motions October 17, 2013 2013 www.rossdalecle.com Presentation of Proof Plaintiff (or prosecutor) presents case-in-chief, then rests; When witnesses are
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
Guthrie v. Ball et al Doc. 240 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA KAREN GUTHRIE, individually and on ) behalf of the Estate of Donald Guthrie, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION A.C.L.U., et al., : Case No. 1:08CV145 : Plaintiff(s), : : JUDGE O MALLEY v. : : : TRIAL ORDER JENNIFER BRUNNER, et al., : : Defendant(s).
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc PHIL JOHNSON, ) ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) No. SC90401 ) J. EDWARD McCULLOUGH, M.D., and ) MID-AMERICA GASTRO-INTESTINAL ) CONSULTANTS, P.C., ) ) Appellants. ) PER CURIAM
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MC HENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION PLAINTIFF S MOTION IN LIMINE
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MC HENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION Smith Plaintiff, v. No.: Jones Defendant. PLAINTIFF S MOTION IN LIMINE Exclusion of Evidence of Informed Consent NOW COMES
More informationWall v. Bascombe Doc. 97 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
Wall v. Bascombe Doc. 97 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION DEBRA S. WALL ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 09-0674-CV-W-FJG ) JENNIFER L. BASCOMBE, ) Defendant.
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT FRANK BELLEZZA, Appellant, v. JAMES MENENDEZ and CRARY BUCHANAN, P.A., Appellees. No. 4D17-3277 [March 6, 2019] Appeal from the Circuit
More informationCase 1:17-cr KBF Document 819 Filed 06/11/18 Page ORDERED. 1 of 8 GUIDELINES REGARDING APPROPRIATE USE OF 302 FORMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
Case 1:17-cr-00350-KBF Document 819 Filed 06/11/18 Page ORDERED. 1 of 8 Post to docket. GUIDELINES REGARDING APPROPRIATE USE OF 302 FORMS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS 6/11/18 Hon. Katherine B. Forrest I. INTRODUCTION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION. v. Case No. 5:13cv369-MW/GRJ
Case 5:13-cv-00369-MW-GRJ Document 112 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION DEBORAH BUSH and PAMELA HARDEN, Plaintiffs,
More informationEVIDENCE, FOUNDATIONS AND OBJECTIONS. Laurie Vahey, Esq.
EVIDENCE, FOUNDATIONS AND OBJECTIONS Laurie Vahey, Esq. KINDS OF EVIDENCE Testimonial Including depositions Make sure you comply with CPLR requirements Experts Real Documentary Demonstrative Visual aid
More informationCASE NUMBER: UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL; PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING PRETRIAL MATTERS TO BE COMPLETED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: UNIFORM ORDER SETTING CASE FOR JURY TRIAL; PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND REQUIRING PRETRIAL MATTERS TO BE COMPLETED
More informationCourt Filings 2000 Trial
Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU 1995-2002 Court Filings 2000 Trial 3-5-2000 Memorandum Opinion Regarding Admissibility of Character Evidence, Other Acts of Richard Eberling, Other Acts
More informationQualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert)
Qualifications, Presentation and Challenges to Expert Testimony - Daubert (i.e. is a DFPS caseworker an expert) 1. Introduction Theodore B. Jereb Attorney at Law P.L.L.C. 16506 FM 529, Suite 115 Houston,
More informationInsight from Carlton Fields Jorden Burt
Insight from Carlton Fields Jorden Burt 2014 Quick Trial Checklist 1. Motions To Be Made or Renewed Just Prior to Trial a. Motions to amend or supplement pleadings or pretrial statement or order b. Motions
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF BARRY PLAINTIFF S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF BARRY / THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, Case No. 08-[redacted] SD Hon. Gary R. Holman [redacted], Defendant. PLAINTIFF S MOTION
More informationMock Trial Practice Law Test
Mock Trial Practice Law Test NOTE: The practice law test is provided as an example and will not be updated each year. Below are sample questions that are similar to those that students may see on the real
More informationLAW550 Litigation Final Exam Notes
LAW550 Litigation Final Exam Notes Important Provisions to Keep in Mind... 2 Voir Dire... 2 Adducing of Evidence Ch 2 Evidence Act... 4 Calling Witnesses... 8 Examination of witnesses... 11 Cross-Examination...
More informationABOTA MOTIONS IN LIMINE SEMINAR
OVERVIEW OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE ABOTA MOTIONS IN LIMINE SEMINAR October 15, 2014 William R. Wick and Andrew L. Stevens Nash, Spindler, Grimstad & McCracken LLP AUTHORITY FOR MOTIONS IN LIMINE In Wisconsin,
More informationImpeachment by omission. Impeachment for inconsistent statement. The Evidence Dance. Opening Statement Tip Twice
Impeachment by omission Impeachment for inconsistent statement The Evidence Dance Opening Statement Tip Twice Closing Argument The Love Boat Story: A Vicious Tale Top Six Objections Evidence Review Housekeeping
More informationInsight from Carlton Fields
Insight from Carlton Fields Quick Trial Checklist 1. Motions To Be Made or Renewed Just Prior to Trial a. Motions to amend or supplement pleadings or pretrial statement or order b. Motions for continuance
More informationE-Discovery Best Practices: Admissibility
E-Discovery Best Practices: Admissibility Electronic evidence, no matter how probative it may be, is useless if it cannot be used in court. Thus, from the outset of a case, practitioners must pay careful
More informationGENERAL ORDER FOR LUCAS COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. damages for alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products; that many of the
GENERAL ORDER FOR LUCAS COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATION It appearing that there are certain actions pending in this Court in which plaintiffs claim damages for alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/29/ :41 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 511 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/29/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------- X In Re NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationUpon reading and filing the annexed affidavit of plaintiff,
PRESENT: At IAS Part 7 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Bronx, at the courthouse located at 851 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York, this dayof, 2017. HON. WILMA
More informationCase 1:03-cv MOB Document 101 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:03-cv-00837-MOB Document 101 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DAVID KATERBERG, v. Plaintiff, Case No. 1:03-CV-837 Hon. Richard
More informationCase 1:10-cv MEA Document 284 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:10-cv-02333-MEA Document 284 Filed 03/18/14 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE LEE ENTERPRISES,
More informationCase: 1:14-cr Document #: 67 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1049
Case: 1:14-cr-00551 Document #: 67 Filed: 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1049 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/ :54 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2016 02:54 PM INDEX NO. 190047/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 15 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X NORMAN DOIRON AND ELAINE
More informationCase 1:08-cv GJQ Doc #377 Filed 03/08/11 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#7955 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:08-cv-00361-GJQ Doc #377 Filed 03/08/11 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#7955 JAMES B. HURLEY and BRANDI HURLEY, jointly and severally, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
More informationCase 1:14-cv PAB-NYW Document 163 Filed 01/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:14-cv-03420-PAB-NYW Document 163 Filed 01/12/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Case 14-cv-03420-PAB-NYW ESMERALDO VILLANUEVA ECHON
More informationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
1 of 7 10/10/2005 11:14 AM Federal Rules of Civil Procedure collection home tell me more donate search V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY > Rule 26. Prev Next Notes Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery;
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
ALEXEI G. ESTRADA, M.D. Plaintiff 92663465 92663465 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO Case No: CV-14-834630 Judge: MICHAEL E JACKSON ERICA J. GLANCY, M.D. Defendant JOURNAL ENTRY PLAINTIFF
More informationAdmissibility of Electronic Evidence
Admissibility of Electronic Evidence PAUL W. GRIMM AND KEVIN F. BRADY 2018 Potential Authentication Methods Email, Text Messages, and Instant Messages Trade inscriptions (902(7)) Certified copies of business
More informationFuchs v Austin Mall Assoc., LLC 2011 NY Slip Op 30440(U) February 23, 2011 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 23452/2004 Judge: David Elliot
Fuchs v Austin Mall Assoc., LLC 2011 NY Slip Op 30440(U) February 23, 2011 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 23452/2004 Judge: David Elliot Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts
More information