Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de679> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de679 RegisterActionDate "2020-11-03" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de679 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Defendants move for an order limiting Steve Drizin from providing any expert testimony regarding false confessions and from testifying regarding damages 494 . The first part of their motion is agreed upon in that Plaintiffs have agreed not to seek testimony regarding Drizin's research and writing in the area of false testimony. The second portion of the request is less concrete. Plaintiffs asked Defendants whether they intended to amend their disclosure to include Drizin as a damages witness and Plaintiffs did not do so. Plaintiff responds that he intends to question Drizin "about his representation of Plaintiff, the process of the post-conviction litigation, Plaintiff's efforts to clear his name, and struggles Plaintiff had while his wrongful conviction was intact" and this would include Drizin's observations of his client at the time. The problem is, Drizin asserted the attorney client privilege to many areas of questioning and the Defendants correctly assert that they do not want Drizin to have the ability to use that privilege as a shield to protect him from answering questions, and later as a sword to support damages. Drizin's testimony is relevant to tell the factual story of how Plaintiff went through the process to clear his name. It is also relevant to put a time frame on the details and to explain what was occurring during those years. However, testifying for example, that his client began to decline psychologically due to the strain would be damages testimony. Because Plaintiff failed to identify Drizin as a damages witness, this would be impermissible. Plaintiffs shall submit sections of Drizin's deposition to the Court by 11/16/20 setting forth why that type of testimony should be admitted at trial if they believe it may be. Defendants shall respond to the submission by 11/23/20. No reply brief is necessary. Motion 494 is granted in part. Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 11/03/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de679 AdministrativeID "679" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de679 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-01963_de494 @default.