gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.682.1
gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.683.0 giuffre-maxwell
gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.684.0

gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.683.0.pdf

giuffre-maxwell 18 pages 792 words document
V9 V11 P22
Open PDF directly ↗ View extracted text
👁 1 💬 0
📄 Extracted Text (792 words)
United States District Court Southern District of New York Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE “BLACK BOOK” AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL Sigrid McCawley BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 356-0011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 STANDARD................................................................................................................................... 3 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 12 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Arlio v. Lively, 474 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2007).......................................................................................................... 3 Carofino v. Forester, 450 F. Supp.2d 257 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).......................................................................................... 3 Ferring B.V. v. Allergan, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 2650, 2016 WL 6441567 ....................................................................................... 3 John Paul Mitchell Sys. v. Quality King Distribs. Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)......................................................................................... 7 Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1996).......................................................................................................... 3 United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2001)........................................................................................................ 7 Wechsler v. Hunt Health Sys., Ltd., 381 F. Supp. 2d 135 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)......................................................................................... 7 Rules Fed. R. Evid. 401 ............................................................................................................................ 3 Fed. R. Evid. 402 ............................................................................................................................ 3 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(B).............................................................................................................. 9 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(C).............................................................................................................. 9 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D) ............................................................................................................. 9 Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).............................................................................................................. 9 Fed. R. Evid. 803 .......................................................................................................................... 10 Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)........................................................................................................................ 8 Fed. R. Evid. 803(17)................................................................................................................ 9, 10 Fed. R. Evid. 804 .......................................................................................................................... 10 ii Fed. R. Evid. 807 .......................................................................................................................... 10 Fed. R. Evid. 901 ............................................................................................................................ 7 Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) ................................................................................................................... 4 iii Plaintiff, Virginia Giuffre, respectfully submits this Motion in Limine to Admit the “Black Book” as Evidence at Trial. BACKGROUND On February 6, 2017, the Court requested a hearing on the admissibility of the “black book” before it could proceed with the qualification of Ms. Giuffre’s forensic document expert Dianne Flores. See Transcript of 2017-02-16 Hearing at 7. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre affirmatively moves in limine for the Court to allow the “black book” to be admitted as evidence at trial. 1 2 STANDARD The purpose of a motion in limine “is to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence ... without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.” Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). The power to rule on motions in limine lies within the district court’s ‘inherent authority to manage the course of its trials.” Carofino v. Forester, 450 F. Supp.2d 257, 270 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Only relevant evidence is admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is relevant if ‘it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.’ Fed. R. Evid. 401. ‘If an item of evidence tends to prove a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action, it is relevant. If it does not tend to prove a material fact, it is irrelevant.’ Arlio v. Lively, 474 F.3d 46, 52 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted). ‘A material fact is one that would affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.’ Id.” Ferring B.V. v. Allergan, Inc., No. 12 CIV. 2650, 2016 WL 6441567, at *1 (Sweet, J.) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2016). 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Ms. Giuffre respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion in Limine to Admit the “Black Book” as Evidence at Trial. Dated: March 3, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice) Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 12 (954) 356-0011 David Boies Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Bradley J. Edwards (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice) S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah 383 University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 (801) 585-52022 2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation. 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 3rd of March, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF. Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel: (303) 831-7364 Fax: (303) 832-2628 Email: [email protected] [email protected] /s/ Sigrid S. McCawley Sigrid S. McCawley 14
ℹ️ Document Details
SHA-256
7289647cfa0e5c8cff35bd88957de9c5624d417495866bf1022db415c2dcab07
Bates Number
gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.683.0
Dataset
giuffre-maxwell
Document Type
document
Pages
18

Comments 0

Loading comments…
Link copied!