Free Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 61.7 kB
Pages: 1
Date: August 30, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 339 Words, 2,476 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/19819/183.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Connecticut ( 61.7 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Connecticut
.*__._._.._._;—;—-»»»»~···——-———————--——-——"·*T*—————————-—-——--—-;_""‘““‘—‘——|
ase_,8{)24lav—02272—AVC Document 183 Filed 08/30/2004 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTIC
’=·· [li K? Q
I kL°F'l
CROWN THEATRES, LP, : CIVIL ACI`I(g@ 29 ADO
: 3:02- Vt? != M8
Plaintiff, Z U c~ me -=.. 5, _
: ""}.> T T3 OURT
VS_ ; ‘ i Ld Ji}. Si
MILTON L. DALY, ET AL.,
: MAY 21, 2004
Defendants. :
i
DEFENDANTS MILTON L. DALY AND TAYLOR—LEIGH, INC.’S
MOTION TO STRIKE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MATERIALS
Defendants Milton L. Daly and Taylor-Leigh, Inc. in the above-entitled matter
hereby move the Court t0 strike Paragraphs 6-12 0f the Declaration of Frederick C.
Hamilton, together with Exhibits 2-4 attached thereto, which affidavit was filed by the
plaintiff as Exhibit J in support of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dated
April 30, 2004. Paragraphs 6-12 of the Hamilton affidavit and the documents attached
thereto present additional "expert reports" that were not disclosed to the defendant in a i
timely fashion and which are inconsistent with Hamilton’s prior deposition testimony
that is relied upon by defendant Anne Daly in support of her motion for a summary
judgment. In addition, the defendants further move to strike the purported “Kroll Zolfo
Cooper Updated Analysis," which has been filed by the plaintiff as Exhibit H in support
n_c¥.I~A “]__:___l_:_cp_._ ___..1.£...- .|.`--. _____.-... . 1 · 1 · ‘ ' *1 " ` `
#4/. _ j l
C 3: 02CV2272 (AVC) . August 26, 2004. The defendants' motiorfgto 3 [
strike (document no. 147) is DENIED. The defendants are qrjantedjj “'
_ ieeve to depose the p1aint1ff's expert, if necessary, at any time
prior to iilfiéll · ¤ -- 0 I nl All
SO ORDERED - L U ; l. ` *.*9 'q N
. Alfred v.l7ceve11o, U.$·D-J- Y I 3 il ,
,)
_ --.- -------- e - . . · s · · at- ·· · · V -- ‘
i‘i, ii‘‘i iisi‘i i siii ots.si sssi sst-
Tg; if LQ? ii , ii ‘C ‘ iini i oisi * ri .oi J s.si ssi· ?