Bentley v. Greensky Trade Credit, LLC et al

Filing 164

ORDER regarding schedule for trial. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 8/4/2017.(Ghosh, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ELISE BENTLEY
v.

NO. 3:14-cv-1157 (VAB)

TRI-STATE OF BRANFORD, LLC,
BRAD POMPILLI, and DAN ROE
ORDER
The jury trial in this case is scheduled to begin on Monday, August 7, 2017. After the
final pre-trial conference with the parties and the subsequent filings since then, the Court has
determined that the implementation of strict time guidelines will promote this trial’s efficient and
expedient resolution.
Indeed, district courts have “inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms
with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of the case.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.
Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016). Consistent with that authority, and consistent with the representations
made by the parties to the Court regarding the timing of their respective cases and the Court’s
understanding of the claims and the evidence to be presented, the Court adopts the following
schedule:
Following jury selection on the morning of Monday, August 7, 2017, the trial shall begin
with the reading of pre-trial jury instructions, followed by opening statements from Plaintiff,
Bentley, and from Defendants, Brad Pompilli and Dan Roe. Opening statements will be limited
to fifteen (15) minutes for each side.
Plaintiff will begin her case on the afternoon of Monday, August 7, 2017 and must rest
her case-in-chief by 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 8, 2017. Defendants will begin trying their

1

case on 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 9, 2017 and must rest by 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
August 9, 2017.
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 8:30 a.m., the Court will inquire and determine whether
any rebuttal testimony is required. See Koseatac v. Rubin, 4 F. App'x 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2001) (“It
is well settled that a district court has wide discretion in determining whether to permit evidence
on rebuttal.”) (internal citations and marks omitted); United States v. Tejada, 956 F.2d 1256,
1266 (2d Cir. 1992) (“The function of rebuttal evidence is to explain or rebut evidence offered
by an opponent.”). If no rebuttal testimony is required, a charge conference will be held
regarding the Court's proposed jury instructions. Since the Court will have already provided the
parties its currently proposed post-trial jury instructions, the parties will be free to provide
proposed amendments to the jury instructions in advance of the charge conference.
If rebuttal testimony is required, rebuttal testimony will begin at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday,
August 10, and the Court will allow the Plaintiff no more than one (1) hour for any direct or redirect examination and Defendants no more than thirty (30) minutes for any cross and re-cross
examination. The charge conference then will be conducted after this evidence has been
presented.
After the charge conference and the final issuance of the post-trial jury instructions and
the verdict form, the Court will begin reading the post-trial jury instructions, the parties will
present their closing arguments and, after closing arguments are finished, the Court will finish
reading the post-trial jury instructions and send the jury to deliberate. Closing arguments will be
limited to thirty (30) minutes for each party, though this time may be reduced, if rebuttal
testimony is required.

2

In accordance with the Court’s inherent authority to ensure that trials proceed efficiently,
these stated time restrictions will be strictly observed, and if the Court determines that any party
is unnecessarily delaying the trial, through the cumulative presentation of evidence or otherwise,
the Court may further limit the trial time provided above, to the extent necessary. See Dietz, 136
S. Ct. at 1892; see also Hardy v. Town of Greenwich, 629 F. Supp. 2d 192, 202 (D. Conn. 2009)
(limiting the amount of time for examination and cross-examination of witnesses). Finally, any
reference to these time restrictions in the presence of the jury may subject that attorney to
sanctions by the Court.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 4th day of August, 2017.
/s/ Victor A. Bolden
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3