GHAWI v. LAW OFFICES HOWARD LEE SCHIFF, P.C., 3:13-cv-115 (JBA). (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Connecticut
Number: infdco20160127b80
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 06, 2016
Summary: ENDORSEMENT ORDER JANET BOND ARTERTON , District Judge . As set forth in open court on January 4, 2016: 1. Plaintiff will forthwith file an Amended Complaint, setting out separately each of the remaining counts to be pursued. 2. Attorney Dumont will withdraw her appearance and substitute counsel admitted in this District will file an appearance as local counsel. 3. Defendant's motion [Doc. # 196] to Amend/Correct Answer and Plaintiff's Motion [Doc. #190] in Limine to Bar Reference to Sta
Summary: ENDORSEMENT ORDER JANET BOND ARTERTON , District Judge . As set forth in open court on January 4, 2016: 1. Plaintiff will forthwith file an Amended Complaint, setting out separately each of the remaining counts to be pursued. 2. Attorney Dumont will withdraw her appearance and substitute counsel admitted in this District will file an appearance as local counsel. 3. Defendant's motion [Doc. # 196] to Amend/Correct Answer and Plaintiff's Motion [Doc. #190] in Limine to Bar Reference to Stat..
More
ENDORSEMENT ORDER
JANET BOND ARTERTON, District Judge.
As set forth in open court on January 4, 2016:
1. Plaintiff will forthwith file an Amended Complaint, setting out separately each of the remaining counts to be pursued.
2. Attorney Dumont will withdraw her appearance and substitute counsel admitted in this District will file an appearance as local counsel.
3. Defendant's motion [Doc. # 196] to Amend/Correct Answer and Plaintiff's Motion [Doc. #190] in Limine to Bar Reference to Statute of Limitations remain under advisement pending further briefing from the parties. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to Defendant's motion to Amend/Correct by January 9, 2016. Defendant's reply, if any, is due January 14, 2016.
4. Plaintiff's Motion [Doc. # 191] in Limine to Bar Reference to Plaintiff's Character, Plaintiff's Motives, and Validity of Debt Sought to be Collected is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant may only offer evidence relevant to Plaintiff's credibility in this case. Defendant agrees not to reference the validity of the debt sought to be collected, and the Court will instruct the jury that validity of the debt is not at issue in this case.
5. Plaintiff's motion [Doc. #198] to make opening statement is GRANTED. See [Doc. #201].
6. Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's Exhibits 2, 3, and 5 to 8 remain under advisement, to be ruled upon at trial. Defendant has withdrawn its objection to Exhibit 4.
7. Plaintiff's objections to Defendant's Exhibits A, B, D, and F are SUSTAINED.
8. Defendant's motions in limine designated (a), (b), (d), and (g) in the Joint Trial Memorandum are GRANTED by agreement. Defendant's motions in limine designated (c) and (j) are MOOT on Plaintiff's representation that no such evidence will be offered. Defendant's motion in limine designated (c) is DENIED in that Plaintiff will not offer evidence of VoIP technology beyond its operation from a consumer standpoint. Defendant's motions in limine designated (e) and (f) are GRANTED by agreement. Telephone calls evidence will contain date and caller information.
9. Defendant's motion in limine designated (h) in the Joint Trial Memorandum is DENIED. Any request to seal must be directed to specific evidence or testimony to enable the Court to undertake the required balancing analysis, and shall be made by separate motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
