Cory v. George Carden Int'l. Circus, Inc.
Cory v. George Carden Int'l. Circus, Inc.
2016 WL 3460783 (E.D. Tex. 2016)
April 6, 2016
Clark, Ron, United States District Judge
Summary
The court has not made any specific rulings regarding ESI. However, the court has indicated that if evidence becomes relevant, counsel should bring it to the court's attention outside the presence of the jury, suggesting that the court is open to considering ESI as evidence.
Additional Decisions
Note: This is an unpublished decision. Check your jurisdiction’s rules about citing unpublished decisions before citing this case to a court.
Cheryl CORY, Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE CARDEN INTERNATIONAL CIRCUS, INC., Defendant
v.
GEORGE CARDEN INTERNATIONAL CIRCUS, INC., Defendant
CIVIL ACTION No. 4:13-CV-760
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
Signed April 06, 2016
Counsel
Spencer Paul Browne, Reyes Bartolomei Browne, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.Clinton V. Cox, IV, Justin Neal Bryan, Fee Smith Sharp & Vitullo, LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendant.
Clark, Ron, United States District Judge
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
*1 Before the court is George Carden International Circus, Inc.'s (“Defendant”) Motion in Limine. (DOC. # 95). Plaintiff Cheryl Cory timely responded. (DOC. # 116). The court's rulings are set out in the attached chart. Any motion to which the other party did not respond is agreed and deemed granted. As always in this court, the grant of a motion in limine is reciprocal. If one side cannot introduce some piece of evidence without approaching the bench, neither can the other side. The court does not invite a re-hash of every ruling, but if counsel believes in good faith that evidence becomes relevant, say for impeachment, or an opponent “opens the door” that issue should be brought to the court's attention outside the presence of the jury.
So ordered and signed on Apr 6, 2016
Rulings on Defendant's Motions in Limine
Cheryl Cory v. George Carden International Circus, Inc. (4:13-CV-760)