Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by Heather Dennis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Carroll et al v. The Tavern Corp. et al Doc. 1 Att. 2 Exhibit 2 APPENDIX 109 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 146 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JOE BARRY CARROLL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE THE TAVERN CORP. and ) NO. 1:08-CV-2514-TWT-JFK CENTRAARCHY RESTAURANT ) MANAGEMENT CO., ) ) Defendants. ) ) JOSEPH SHAW, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE THE TAVERN CORP. and ) NO. 1:08-CV-2554-TWT-JFK CENTRAARCHY RESTAURANT ) MANAGEMENT CO., ) ) Defendants. ) ) AMENDED CONSOLIDATED PRE-TRIAL ORDER COME NOW Plaintiffs Joe Barry Carroll and Joseph Shaw and Defendants The Tavern Corp. and CentraArchy Restaurant Management Co., and pursuant to Local Rule 16.4, file their Consolidated Pre-Trial Order as follows: 1 APPENDIX 110 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 2 of 146 1. There are pending motions or other matters pending for consideration by the court except as noted: Defendants filed a Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Rodney Odom Due to his Failure to Attend his Deposition, which is still pending. The parties also anticipate filing additional Motions in Limine/Motions to Exclude no later than seven days prior to trial. 2. All discovery has been completed, unless otherwise noted, and the court will not consider any further motions to compel discovery. (Refer to LR 37.1B). Provided there is no resulting delay in readiness for trial, the parties shall, however, be permitted to take the depositions of any persons for the preservation of evidence and for use at trial. Plaintiffs reserve the right to conduct a deposition for use a trial of Heather Dennis, who was within this Court’s jurisdiction at the time of her deposition, but now resides elsewhere. Defendants reserve the right to take the depositions of Broderick Adams, Marcus Collier, Jay Kulkin, and Rodney Odom, outside the discovery period 2 APPENDIX 111 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 3 of 146 because they were not identified as potential witnesses until after the close of discovery. 3. Unless otherwise noted, the names of the parties as shown in the caption to this Order and the capacity in which they appear are correct and complete, and there is no question by any party as to the misjoinder or non-joinder of any parties. There is no question by any party as to the misjoinder or non-joinder of any parties. 4. Unless otherwise noted, there is no question as to the jurisdiction of the court; jurisdiction is based upon the following code sections. There are no unresolved disputes as to the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter. 5. The following individually-named attorneys are hereby designated as lead counsel for the parties: A. Plaintiff Carroll: Gerald Weber Georgia Bar No. 744878 Law Offices of Gerry Weber LLC Post Office Box 5391 3 APPENDIX 112 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 4 of 146 Atlanta, Georgia 31107 (404) 522-0507 [email protected] B. Plaintiff Shaw: Stephanie D. Banks Georgia Bar No. 036378 The Law Office of Stephanie D. Banks and Company, LLC 2930 Alcove Drive Scottdale, GA 30079 (404) 296-7909 [email protected] C. Defendants: Ernest L. Greer Georgia Bar No. 309180 David W. Long-Daniels Georgia Bar No. 141916 Greenberg Traurig, LLP 3290 Northside Parkway Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30327 (678)553-2100 6. Normally, the plaintiff is entitled to open and close arguments to the jury. (Refer to LF39.3(B)(2)(b)). State below the reasons, if any, why the plaintiff should not be permitted to open arguments to the jury. Per the Court’s Minute Entry for proceedings held on June 22, 2011 [Carroll Doc. 192; Shaw Doc. 142: Each plaintiff will be allowed 15 minutes for opening 4 APPENDIX 113 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 5 of 146 statements and defendants will have 30 minutes total for opening. The Court will decide about the amount for closing arguments after the trial. The captioned case shall be tried ( X )toajuryor(_____)tothecourt without a jury, or (____) the right to trial by jury is disputed. Plaintiffs: Additionally, injunctive relief shall be decided by the Court. 7. State whether the parties request that the trial to a jury be bifurcated, i.e. that the same jury consider separately issues such as liability and damages. State briefly the reasons why trial should or should not be bifurcated. The parties do not request bifurcation and these two cases have been consolidated for purposes of trial. Plaintiffs may request a short post-jury-verdict presentation of evidence relevant to injunctive relief claims. 8. Attached hereto as Attachment “A” and made a part of this order by reference are the questions which the parties request that the court propound to the jurors concerning their legal qualifications to serve. See Attachment A. 5 APPENDIX 114 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 6 of 146 9. Attached hereto as Attachment “B-1” are the general questions which Plaintiffs wish to be propounded to the jurors on voir dire examination. Attached hereto as Attachment “B-2” are the general questions which Defendants wish to be propounded to the jurors on voir dire examination. The court, shall question the prospective jurors as to their address and occupation and as to the occupation of a spouse, if any. Counsel may be permitted to ask follow-up questions on these matters. It shall not, therefore, be necessary for counsel to submit questions regarding these matters. The determination of whether the judge or counsel will propound general voir dire questions is a matter of courtroom policy which shall be established by each judge. See Attachment B-1 and B-2. 10. State any objections to Plaintiffs’ voir dire questions. Defendants generally object to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Voir Dire questions to the extent that the questions are argumentative, assume facts that are not in evidence, improperly call for a legal conclusion or mischaracterize the record in this case. 6 APPENDIX 115 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 7 of 146 Defendants object to proposed questions 25 and 29 on the grounds that they are argumentative and would tend to predispose the jury to a particular conclusion. Defendants object to proposed questions 12, 28, 29, and 30 on the grounds that they are irrelevant and do not address the issues to be tried in this case. Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs object to proposed questions 17, 18, 24, and 26 on the grounds that they are cumulative, in light of other proposed voir dire questions. Specifically, proposed questions 17 and 18 are cumulative in light of proposed question 5; and proposed questions 24 and 26 are cumulative in light of proposed question 3. Defendants reserve, and do not waive, their right to raise additional objections to any of these voir dire questions based on Court rulings, new case law, or other developments between now and trial. Further, if Plaintiffs’ request to limit Defendants’ general voir dire questions to no more than the combined questions of both Plaintiffs is granted, which it should not be, Defendants ask that each of the follow up questions in Plaintiffs’ numbered proposed general voir dire questions be counted as a separate question. State any objections to Defendants’ voir dire questions. 7 APPENDIX 116 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 8 of 146 Plaintiff objects generally to the volume of voir dire questions as far exceeding the 30 minute allotted time set by the Court. Plaintiffs also reserve the right to ask balancing questions for unbalanced questions as set out below. Question 14 Irrelevant. Question 15 Cumulative of 14 and irrelevant – not employment case. Question 27 Vague, irrelevant and unbalanced. Question 28 Cumulative of 27. Question 30 Juror privacy issue with alcohol abuse. Question 31 Irrelevant. Question 32 Argumentative/unbalanced. The Defendants are attempting to utilize these voir dire question as a vehicle for pre-educating and indoctrinating prospective jurors as to their theory of the case and their defense. Question 44 Irrelevant. Question 45 Highly prejudicial, as no suggestion that Plaintiffs drank too much in this case. Question suggestive of such misbehavior, and attempts to prejudice jurors. Question 47-64 Highly prejudicial, unbalanced and argumentative attempt to paint Plaintiffs as ungentlemanly. The Defendants are attempting to utilize these voir dire question as a vehicle for pre-educating and indoctrinating prospective 8 APPENDIX 117 Case 1:08-cv-02514-TWT Document 197 Filed 07/22/11 Page 9 of 146 jurors as to their theory of the case and their defense. Defendants are also attempting to pre-try case with a hypothetical fact pattern. Question 75 Prejudicial, unbalanced and argumentative. Question 77-80, 83-85 Unbalanced, and highly argumentative -- tending to instill prejudice against Plaintiffs with suggestions that, as in Question 84/85, they are seeking a “significant” and “incredibly large amount of money.” Questions also address issues of instruction by the court and/or law. Question 90 and 91 These questions are fair if both are asked, but not if only one question is asked and Plaintiffs request the right to ask one or both questions. Questions 92 and 93 The Defendants are attempting to utilize these voir dire questions as a vehicle for pre-educating and indoctrinating prospective jurors as to their theory of the case and their defense.