A lawyer by the name of Guice
has tried to play fair and be nice
but when State Farm raised her ire
she grabbed their personal voir dire
and asked the Court for ice.
If you recall State Farm puts the Court to the test in Bossier – files nine motions in limine UPDATED and the subsequent court order denying Bossier’s consent motion for an extension, reported in a recent SLABBED Daily, you may find Bossier’s motion in limine as interesting as I did – and, yes, Bossier filed just one but counsel did indeed meet the Court’s deadline!
Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record…would request that this Honorable Court rule in advance of the trial excluding from evidence the following matters and directing counsel and their witnesses to not elicit testimony, argument, or evidence, directly or indirectly, regarding the following matters…
The first matter has been around the block so often, it shouldn’t be necessary to ask the Court to once again exclude testimony, argument, or evidence, directly or indirectly, regarding Bossier’s MDA grant; and, the second, to likewise exclude mention of the the Bossier’s SBA loan. In fact, according to a footnote, Bossier attempted to avoid asking the Court to once again rule on these matter:
Counsel for Plaintiff has requested a stipulation from counsel for Defendant relating to the MDA/SBA evidence issues, in accordance with this Court’s prior rulings, in order to avoid the necessity of filing this motion. Counsel for Defendant has not responded to same. Moreover, as counsel for Plaintiff has still not received Defendant’s pre-trial inserts, it is unknown whether Defendant intends to introduce this evidence at trial. (emphasis added)
Bossier’s counsel has obviously seen Defendant’s counsel in action in other cases and the third matter the Court is asked to exclude is Continue reading “In limine in limerick – Bossier v State Farm”