Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

¤ _ Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU Document 101 Filed O4/22/2004 Page 1 of 4
‘ T
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT F I L E D F
Zllllll APH 22 A ‘i= U2
BROADWAY THEATRE CORP. ‘ 1
g U.S. DISTRICT COURT
) BRIUGEPORT. CONN
’ l
V. ) CIVIL ACTION NO: 300—C\/00706 (SRU) ;
’ l
)
)
BUENA VISTA PICTURES )
DISTRIBUTION, ET AL. ) APRIL 20, 2004
E
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE T0 I)EFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
The Plaintiffs Objection to Defendants’ Motions in Limine is based upon
improper service and notice, In Defer1dants’ Reply to this Objection, the Defendants state
that the Plaintiff s Objection is "riddled with significant misrepresentations?
There are no misrepresentations by the Plaintiff significant or otherwise. The
Plaintiffs Objection clearly explains Plaintiffs receipt, from Defendants’ counsel, in
counsel’s office, of formally prepared draft copies of the Memorandum. No Motions i
were contained. The Joint Memorandum tiled the next day with this Court was
presented, as demonstrated to this court in Plaintiffs Objection, without reference to any
Motions in Limine.
Since that time, counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendants have met and l
discussed issues related to settlement. There have been no discussions of any kind with
I

I Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU Document 101 Filed O4/22/2004 Page 2 of 4
Defendants’ counsel concerning any Motions in Limine.
5
The Plaintiff takes the strongest exception to that portion of the Defendants’ I
Reply which states: E
“On January 15, 2004, the parties appeared before the Honorable William I. Garfinkel to
participate in a settlement conference. Again, the pending Motions in Limine were
discussed? I
The Plaintiff must reluctantly dignity the foregoing only to the point of saying that no
discussion occurred with Judge Garfinkel involving Motions in Limine, "Again," in the l
presence of Plaintiff counsel. The Defendants are aware that any discussion, on any
topic, which occurred during that settlement conference, and certainly with Judge
Garfinkel, is privileged and confidential. No such privileged and confidential
communication may properly be in Def`endants’ Reply, which is a public record
document. i
The necessary implication of Defendants’ words is that Plaintiff counsel is making _
deliberately false statements concerning such privileged and confidential discussions,
which Plaintiff counsel absolutely denies. The accusation is, of course, of the most
extreme professional misconduct, which Plaintiff counsel vehemently denies. The
Defendants’ Reply offers that the Plaintiff is "disingenuous and lacks credibility," and
presents to this Court the image of Judge Gartinkel, at the confidential settlement
conference, as witness. If conduct is present which requires sanction, it is not the conduct l
I
l

l
Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU Document 101 Filed O4/22/2004 Page 3 of 4
of the Plaintiff I
The Plaintiff’s Objection clearly demonstrates that the Defendants’ Motions were 5
l
without proper notice and service, and that the Defendants do not retain the right to
complain that Plaintiff has been ‘inexcusably tardyf The Plaintiff respectfully asks this
Court to sustain its Objection to the granting of Defendants’ Motions in Lirnine.
THE PLAINTIFF (
BROADWAY THEATRE CORPORATION j
PeterC. Spodick (ct 408103)
592 Central Avenue
New Haven, Connecticut 06*515
203 387 5714 203 389 5732 (fax)
i
l
l

I
Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU Document 101 Filed 04/22/2004 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE N
S
The defendant certifies that a copy of this motion was posted, by tirst class mail, pre-paid,
this day, April 20, 2004, to:
Ben A. Solnit, Esq. 5
Elizabeth Andrews, Esq.
Richard Bowerman, Esq.
Tyler, Cooper and Alcorn 5
205 Church Street E
New Haven, Connecticut
06510
Peter C. Spodick ct 408103
1
1
1
E