Davis et al v. Connecticut Community Bank

Filing 396

ORDER Overruling Plaintiffs' Objection to Defendant's Response to the Court's May 31, 2013 Order 376 . See attached Order. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 06/20/13. (Rock, K.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT STEPHEN R. LEVINSON; RICHARD E. LAYTON; AND DR. R. LAYTON P.A. 401(K) PLAN PLAINTIFF, v. : : : : CIVIL ACTION No. 3:09cv269(VLB) : : WESTPORT NATIONAL BANK; : DEFENDANT. : -----------------------------------------------------------------X AUDREY SHORT, INDIVIDUALLY AND : FAYE SHORT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : TRUSTEE FOR THE FAYE S. ALBERT : RETIREMENT PLAN, ALBERT RETIREMENT: PLAN. : : PLAINTIFFS, : CIVIL ACTION No.3:09-cv-1955(VLB) v. : : CONNECTICUT COMMUNITY BANK, N.A. : DEFENDANT. : ----------------------------------------------------------------X SOL DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : TRUSTEE OF THE SOL DAVIS : RETIREMENT PLAN, ET AL. : : PLAINTIFFS, : CIVIL ACTION No. 3:10cv261(VLB v. : : CONNECTICUT COMMUNITY BANK, N.A. : JUNE 20, 2013 OWNER OF WESTPORT NATIONAL BANK : DEFENDANT. : ----------------------------------------------------------------X ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S MAY 31, 2013 ORDER [Dkt. 376] Plaintiffs’ objection is denied as untimely, as it was not raised at the time of the Joint Trial Memorandum, as ordered by the Court. [Levinson Dkt. 464, 488, 510; Short Dkt. 130, 154, 174; Davis Dkt. 111, 121, 266, 289.] The Court has the 1   authority to manage its docket. See Jamison v. Fischer, No. 11-civ.-4697, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144307, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2012) (“Courts have inherent authority to set and enforce deadlines for the management of litigation.”) (citation omitted). Both parties, to the extent that they did not raise objections in timely motions in limine as instructed by the Court, have waived their objections. Cf. Whitserve, LLC v. Godaddy.com, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-948, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50620, at *10 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2013) (noting that a court has “substantial authority regarding the management of discovery”) (citation omitted). The parties are reminded that it is the Court’s responsibility to charge the Jury on the law. Experts may not reach legal conclusions in their testimony. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 359, 363-64 (2d Cir. 1992); Memorandum of Decision Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion in Limine, Levinson Dkt. 456. The Court reminds the parties that they should be guided by the limitations prescribed in Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and to prepare their witnesses accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. ________/s/______________ Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant United States District Judge Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: June 20, 2013 2  

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?