United States of America v. Cohen et al
Filing
179
OPINION: The Motion of The Windsor Organization, Inc. to strike the Declaration of Christine A. Footit 147 is DENIED. The Motion of The Windsor Organization, Inc. to Strike the Plaintiff's Opposition to its Motion to Strike 153 is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is ALLOWED to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks additional relief in limine. It is DENIED in other respects. The portion of the Motion which serves as a Reply to the Plaintiff's Response to the Motion to Strike is also STRICKEN. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 10/17/11. (ME, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 18 October, 2011 02:53:45 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IRVING COHEN, THE WINDSOR
ORGANIZATION, INC., and 3-B
STORES, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 08-3282
ORDER
RICHARD MILLS, U.S. District Judge:
Pending is the motion of Defendant The Windsor Organization, Inc.
[Windsor II] to strike the declaration of Christine A. Footit [d/e 147].
Pending also is Windsor II’s motion to strike the Plaintiff’s opposition to
Windsor II’s motion to strike the declaration of Christine A. Footit [d/e
153].
Attached as Exhibit A to the Plaintiff’s Response to the Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment is the Declaration of Christine A. Footit,
the Senior Stakeholder Liaison with the Internal Revenue Service, SBSE
Small Business, Communications, Liaison and Disclosure section. Windsor
II claims that the Declaration should be stricken because it is not based on
personal knowledge, in violation of Rule 56(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. On June 29, 2011, Footit received copies of documents
from Attorney Sean Beaty, counsel for the Plaintiff, and was asked to
undertake certain assignments related to the documents.
Windsor II asserts that Footit has not been disclosed or qualified as
a witness in this case and cannot testify to matters outside of her personal
knowledge. She has no personal knowledge of the matters to which she
testifies in her Declaration. The Plaintiff notes that the parties scheduled
Footit’s deposition for August 4, 2011.
The Court has reviewed Footit’s Declaration and concludes that the
information contained therein is potentially relevant pursuant to the Rules
of Evidence. In its response, the Plaintiff claims that the information in the
Declaration may qualify as summary evidence under Rule 1006 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence. That rule provides:
The contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or
photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court
2
may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or
calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be made available
for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at
reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be
produced in court.
Fed. R. Evid. 1006. Footit’s Declaration appears to summarize evidence
which is somewhat voluminous. Because it is potentially relevant, the
Court will Deny the motion to strike.
Following the Plaintiff’s Response to Windsor II’s Motion, Windsor
II moved to strike the Response on the basis that it contains further
argument. In its Response to the initial Motion, the Plaintiff also requested
a ruling in limine from the Court regarding the relevance of Defendant
Irving Cohen’s alleged efforts to launder funds through various nominees
to himself.
After considering the actual Response to the Motion to Strike, the
Court will strike that portion of the Response that seeks additional relief.
A response to a motion to strike is not the proper vehicle in which to seek
additional relief.
The Court will also strike that portion of Windsor II’s Memorandum
3
in Support of its Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Opposition to Windsor II’s
Motion to Strike the Declaration of Christine A. Footit which actually
serves as a Reply to the Plaintiff’s Response. Reply memorandums are
generally not permitted. See CDIL LR 7.1(B)(3).
Ergo, the Motion of The Windsor Organization, Inc. to strike the
Declaration of Christine A. Footit [d/e 147] is DENIED. The Motion of
The Windsor Organization, Inc. to Strike the Plaintiff’s Opposition to its
Motion to Strike [d/e 153] is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. It is ALLOWED to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks additional
relief in limine. It is DENIED in other respects. The portion of the Motion
which serves as a Reply to the Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion to Strike
is also STRICKEN.
ENTER: October 17, 2011
FOR THE COURT:
s/Richard Mills
United States District Judge
4
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?