Free Motion for Clarification - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

, ‘ Case 3:00-cv-0065p1§FD Document 103 Filed 1 1/@152003 Page 1 of 3
\e — A i
1`1'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT B *1 “ it 1
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I- ,. 3,,
itil} ith? 2 l ri ·@‘ ·~’ A
1
> rs am; 2 2-nj __5L3 R Q
CONSTITUTION STATE CHALLENGE, INC. and ) i-i_f:»_l—l i r U til? bl
NORTHEASTERN OPEN INVITATIONAL, INC. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.:
)
Plaintiffs ) 300CV0650 (CFD)
) .
v. ) \
) .
JOHN NYEMCHEK )
CATHI NYEMCHEK ) NOVEMBER 19, 2003
)
Defendants )
)

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
1. This matter is a civil matter pending before this Court and scheduled to commence trial on 1
December 2, 2003.
2. On November 17, 2003 this Court issued an order on a preliminary matter regarding
testimony of proposed defense witness Attorney Frederick Lehrman.
3. The order issued by the Court stated: Should it become necessary for Attorney Kaatz to
ofer testimony, co-counsel for the plaintgffs should be prepared to proceed with the trial. Q
4. Because Plaintiffs do not know, at the present time while preparing for trial whether
Attorney Lehrman will appear and testify and, if so, what portions of Attorney Lehrman’s y
proposed testimony will be admissible and what portions will not be admissible, they are l
unable to determine at this time if there will be a need for Attorney Kaatz to offer rebuttal ·
testimony.
5. Counsel for Plaintiffs are unclear as to the Cou1t’s intent with regard to the quoted section
ofthe Court’s ruling. E
WHEREFORE, for the reasons as recited hereinabove, Plaintiffs pray that this Court will
clarify its ruling by stating:
\\Server\le0n\civil\Cote\reqforclarii§r.d0G I
i

·‘·* , _ _
i'‘‘ ` `‘`i‘ -. . .

l Case 3:00-cv-00650eOFD Document 103 Filed 11/Q;i[£003 Page 2 of 3
a) Does the Court’s ruling mean that if Attorney Lehrman testifies for the defense] that
Attorney Kaatz is precluded from testifying in rebuttal if he has thus far conducted the
Plaintiffs case'?
b) Does the Court’s ruling mean that if Attorney Kaatz testifies in rebuttal then co-counsel for
the Plaintiffs must proceed with just the cross examination of Attorney Kaatz or with
the entire balance ofthe trial?
For these reasons Plaintiffs request that the Court expand on its order of November 17, 2003
so as to permit Plaintiffs to determine how to proceed in the preparation for trial.
Dated at Hartford, CT this 19"` day of November, 2003.
PLAINTIFFS ‘
BY THEIR ATTORNEYS
Leon M. Kaatz
111 Oak Street
Hartford, CT 06106 '
(860) 247-5640 I
Federal Bar No. 00037 g
ORDER
The foregoing motion having been heard by the Court it is hereby ordered:
GRANTED/DENIED. p
THE COURT {
By: é
Judge/Clerk
i
I Plaintiffs will not be calling Attorney Lehrman as a witness. lf and when he testifies Plaintiffs will already have l
rested on their case in chief
\\Server\leon\eivil\Cote\reqforclariiy.doc

Case 3:00-cv-OO65l0.eCFD Document 103 Filed 11/@@2003 Page 3 of 3 i
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid and
delivered by email attachment to Mr. and Mrs. John and Cathi Nymchek, 970 Tilton Road;
Valley Cottage, NY 10989 and to Attorney John Linderman, 185 Asylum Street, Hartford, CT
06103, and to the Honorable Thomas P. Smith, United States District Court House, 450 Main
Street, Hartford, CT 06103 on or before the 19m day of November, 2003. l
H I
Q E
Leon M. Kaatz
Commissioner ofthe Superior Court
t
l
J
5
1
l
\\Server\leon\civil\Cote\n·eqfcrclarify.doc 1
____l