Coleman v. Hutchins et al

Filing 145

ORDER: The Court notes the copy of Mr. Carpenter's letter, 144 and Mr. Laux's response, which is attached so it will be of record. The Court accepts Mr. Carpenter's explanation and his apology. This matter is closed as far as this Court is concerned. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/27/2021. (jak)

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 145 Filed 08/27/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
VANESSA COLE,
As Personal Representative of the Estate of Roy
Lee Richards Jr.
v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 4:17-cv-553-DPM

DENNIS HUTCHINS

DEFENDANT
ORDER

The Court notes the copy of Mr. Carpenter's letter, Doc. 144, and

Mr. Laux' s response, which is attached so it will be of record. The Court
appreciates counsel's thoughts.
explanation and his apology.

The Court accepts Mr. Carpenter's
The Court sees human error, some

fumbling with technology, a bit of haste, and confusion rather than any
intentional effort to mislead the Court. This matter is closed as far as
this Court is concerned.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 145 Filed 08/27/21 Page 2 of 3
Clayton Jackson
From:

Sent:
To:

Cc:

Subject:

Michael Laux < [e-mail] >
Tuesday, August 24, 2021 1:52 PM
Carpenter, Tom
[e-mail]; Clayton Jackson; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Betton, Alex;
Wisdom, Debbie
Re: Letter filed as Document 144 in Cole v. Hutchins, No. 4:17-cv-553-DPM

CAUTION - EXTERNAL:

Dear Judge Marshall:

It was my understanding that Mr. Carpenter was required in his letter to explain his two (2) separate instances of
misrepresentation to the Court, as well as his phony email address stunt. As far as I can see, his letter is absolutely silent
to the former.

Of note, it would seem that Mr. Carpenter's administrative assistant, Debbie Wisdom, inadvertently used his phony email
addresses in communication to the Court. One must surmise that she too received " bounce back" emails. I know Ms.
Wisdom to be a conscientious and dutiful City employee, the type of person who would likely immediately report this to
M r. Carpenter. If this is accurate, it would seem to make Mr. Carpenter's misrepresentations more egregious.

My understanding is the Court was more concerned about Mr. Carpenter' s misrepresentations to the bench than the
phony email address stunt.

Am I mistaken in the Court's instructions to Mr. Carpenter? Should Mr. Carpenter not be required to explain why he told
the Court one th ing about why I did not receive a communication to which I was entitled and then, in the next breath,
admitted to co-counsel and myself the very opposite?

Thank you,

Mike Laux

On Aug 20, 2021, at 12:50 PM, Ca rpenter, Tom <[e-mail]> wrote:
1

Case 4:17-cv-00553-DPM Document 145 Filed 08/27/21 Page 3 of 3
Dear Judge Marshall,
This email is to inform you of two things:
1.

I have fulfilled the direction given to me about the email problems with the
proposed defendant instructions for the 2 nd verdict phase of the trial;

2.

Even though I have copies of emails to [e-mail], and
have included that address in the individual emails about this matter sent today,
I have received a bounce back notice as to that specific address. A copy of that
notice is attached. Evidently, the address used above has gotten through to the
Court. The point is that this is one reason why some items that I emailed during
the trial did not get to chambers as intended. For that, I apologize.
Tom Carpenter

Thomas M. Carpenter
O FFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

500 West Markham Street, Ste. 3i0
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1430
(D) [phone]
(M)[phone]
(F) [phone]
[e-mail]

<mime-attachment>

CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking on links.

2