Free Order on Motion in Limine - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I Case 3:OO#cV-00835-CFD DOCUITIGHT 351 Filed O3/3`I/2004 lP]%Q.¢3&l€Zl> YY\\`P'l CII SYY\t§§-I
I ” I
I _ , ·,·»» ye.
I % UNITED STATES DISTRICHIIT II E
X 5 O DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT IJ U
ra •· ,.\ 7 3 0 I
» llllll Null db ft OI
I __ count I
. -,,— []I";JIliII»I t y
` ` J `
I INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B. I
1 Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO J
3:00CV835 (CF D) I
I
v. I ,
I MOSITAFA REYAD AND WAFA REYAD I
_ _,J jj.) _ Defendants I
(TJ }--· IQ Q DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 2003
V 6;.% Cl. 2 _j._y- r {
.5; R; “&‘_·_ I I
I H .;;i:=Fr`M '· n D
I Q DEFEQ DANT MOSTAFA REYAl)’S SECOND MOTION IN LIMINE I
“ .
gui Defendant Mostafa Reyad hereby respectfully move this Court to Strike certain I
¤r.| `
H I
L" inadmissible evidence out of the records of the Joint Trial Memorandum. Plaintiffs
eu
g contention to move all issues to Trial including inadmissible evidence is improper, and I
l
·-r·I Z
iii; contrary to the Rules of Court. Plaintiff consumed more than two (2) years to show his I
Ig identity complicated Defendant’s proceeding. Now, Plaintiff attempting to block I
cm
pg I
Defendant’s issues which were raised during pretrial and not ruled upon. This Court .
tu
ti
B g Ruled upon and Denied the summary judgement founded on preclusion. The Court did I
'° I
E g not Rule on material issues raised by Defendant. Defendant’s issues emerge evidentiary ?
·e 4.:
¤ :>· u
lg? ‘ § problems. Defendant attempts to solve it in the iirst motion in limine, Plaintiff avoids
Q4 M ru
{E: 2 E response. Defendant hereby providing the evidence, and not asking Plaintiff to provide it.
. m I
E ti 3
-.-• cu iu
s .¤ is I
" g' m e- ;
5 st; I I
-.-I
s s so 1
_. " —· · tee ree sg--; __ nig., ,..__;.¥_£;_;__;;;£;_;;pi;
egg. .i_;,,; ,enF?_T1:;E_;5 pg Zi Tp T __, g_g_g
Y ee r -~; --~¤- .-3,;; I _____..__,,__g_£;_;,;;;¥£;i;;-L
,g;,_,;,E$?7?g;j i T it T _ 5 _g_g