Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

= Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU Document 98 Filed O3/22/2004 Page 1 of 4
I
I
I
I
I lid
I ae'? E ..,1
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i •·-·
I DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT QS I3 I-
:05 rn I
I ='*"* 1;]
cu
I BROADWAY THEATRE CORP. ) 9,4 G
) - I
I > I
V- I CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:00-CV-00706 (SRU)
I I I
> I
I BUENA VISTA PICTURES ) .
I DISTRIBUTION, COLUMBIA ) I
I PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC., ) I
DREAMWORKS DISTRIBUTION L.L.C., ) I
LIONS GATE FILMS INC., ) I
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER ) ‘ I
DISTRIBUTION CO., MIRAMAX FILM ) I
CORP., NEW LINE CINEMA ) I
CORPORATION, PARAMOUNT ) I
PICTURES CORPORATION, SONY ) I
PICTURES RELEASING ) I
CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL FILM )
EXCHANGES, INC., WARNER BROS. ) ‘
DISTRIBUTING, AND USA FILMS, LLC ) MARCH 22, 2004 I
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO
DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE
I
On March 15, 2004, Plaintiff, Plaintiff Broadway Theatre Corp. (“Plaintiff’) filed an I
Objection to Defendants Motions in Limine. The basis for Plaintiffs Objection is that it I
allegedly did not receive proper notice and service of the Motions. In addition to being filed
nearly four months after the Court ordered deadline of November 21, 2003, Plaintiffs Objection
is riddled with significant misrepresentations and articulates no substantive, `legal or equitable
basis for the denial of Defendanfs Motions in Limine.
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
I
I
I




I I _ Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU Document 98 Filed O3/22/2004 Page 2 of 4
I
I
I .
I I
I In July 2003, the Court ordered the parties to 'jointly submit, one continuous document
I signed by counsel for all parties, a final pretrial memorandum. . .by November 14, 2003.**
(emphasis in original). In Paragraph ll of the Pre—Trial Order, the Court further ordered the
I parties to "attach all motions in limine together with supporting memoranda" to the final pretrial
I memorandum. Ld; at 1I l 1. Additionally, this Court ordered that "[a]ny memorandum in
I opposition to a motion in limine shall be filed within seven (7) days after the filing of the
I motion." Q I
In accordance with the Court's order., the parties filed their Joint Pre-Trial Memorandum
on November 14, 2003. Attached at tabs B, C and D were Defendants' three Motions in Limine.
kl; at Tabs B, C and D. In its Objection, Plaintiff admits that "[a] copy of the [Joint Pre··Trial
Memorandum] was delivered to Plaintiff counsel by Defendants’ counsel," and attaches the ,
I corresponding cover letter dated November 14, 2003, as well as a copy of the envelope label
indicating that t}1e document was "hand delivered." Plaintiff never responded to Defendants'
Motions. I
On December 9, 2003, the parties appeared before this Court for a Calendar Call. During
the Call, the parties, together with the Court, discussed evidentiary issues that would need to be I
addressed prior to the commencement of trial, including Defendants' Motions in Limine. On
January 15, 2004, the parties appeared before the Honorable William I. Garfinkel to participate I
I in a settlement conference. Again, the pending Motions in Limine were discussed. Finally, the
undersigned counsel represents that during multiple telephone calls and meetings with Plaintiffs
counsel, the Motions in Limine and the evidentiary issues raised therein were referenced.
Plaintiffs claims, nearly four months alter the date on which objections were to be filed,
I
I
2 I
I
I



ll A * Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU Document 98 Filed O3/22/2004 Page 3 of 4
( t
I that it was completely unaware of the Motions in Limine is disingenuous and lacks credibility. Q
/` Plaintiff admits that it received a copy of the Pre—Trial Memorandmn in a timely manner in its
{ Objection. Plaintiff also admits that its counsel did not read the submission "until this week."
1 Plaintiffs complete lack of diligence in reviewing Defendants' timely filings, as well as its
i extraordinarily tardy tiling of an objection thereto is inexcusable. A denial of Defendants
\ Motions in Limine on this basis would be extremely prejudicial, and Plaintiffs Objection should
l be overruled.
THE DEFENDAN
By i
ard . owerman (ct 04181)
Ben A. Solnit (ct 00292) _
Elizabeth K. Andrews (ct 20986)
Tyler Cooper & Alcorn, LLP -
205 Church Street
Post Office Box 1936
New Haven, Comiecticut 06509
(203) 784-8200 (tel.)
(203) 865-7865 (fax) ,
e-mail: bowermang@),tylercooper.com Q
solnit@tylercooper. com *
[email protected] \
3 l
n
TT"-_"""


l ‘ I ’ Case 3:00-cv-00706-SRU Document 98 Filed O3/22/2004 Page 4 of 4
l
l
l
{ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l
{ This 1S to cemfy that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via tirst-class
l mail on March 22, 2004 to the following: I
\ Peter C. Spodick, Esquire
l 592 Central Avenue l
t New Haven, Connecticut 06515 `
y l
l
l l
E . A s (ct 20986) =
l
l

4 l
*__*;