Joffe v. King & Spalding LLP

Filing 253

ORDER: granting in part and denying in part 193 Motion in Limine; denying 195 Motion in Limine; denying 197 Motion in Limine; denying 204 Motion in Limine. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated at the conference: Defendant 9;s motion to preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence concerning back pay and front day damages after September 11, 2018, Dkt. 204, is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion to exclude testimony about media coverage surrounding his separation from his former counsel, Dkt. 195, is DENIED. Accordingly, the motion to exclude the opinions discussing his prior counsel's charging lien (Dkts. 113, 184) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion to bifurcate the trial into liability and damages phases, Dkt. 197, is DENIED. Defendant's motion to exclude evidence regarding the relative size of the parties' legal teams and resources, Dkt. 193, is DENIED. Defendant's motion to exclude evidence regarding King and Spalding's size and prof itability, Dkt. 193, is DENIED. Defendant's motion to exclude evidence regarding other claims or lawsuits against King & Spalding implicating professional liability issues, Dkt. 193, is GRANTED. Defendant's motion to exclude evidence regard ing communication with King & Spalding's professional liability insurance carrier, Dkt. 193, is GRANTED. Defendant's motion to exclude King & Spalding's policy entitled "Claims, Situations That Might Lead to Claims, And Subpoenas/ Discovery Directed To The Firm and Its Lawyers,' Dkt. 193, is GRANTED. Defendant's motion to exclude the privilege log produced by King & Spalding, Dkt. 193, is GRANTED. Defendant's motion to exclude statements made by Judge Lewis Kapl an about King &Spalding's conduct during the Vringo v. ZTE lawsuit, Dkt. 193, is DENIED. Defendant's motion to preclude Plaintiff from using the terms "Sanctions Order" and "Red Flags Email," Dkt. 193, is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must brief the issue of whether Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial on his ERISA claim. Defendant, which objected to a jury trial with respect to the ERISA claim, Dkt. 224 at 3, must file a brief in support of this contention by no later than Friday, November 13, 2020. Plaintiff's response in opposition is due no later than Friday, December 4, 2020. Defendant's reply in support is due no later than Friday, December 11, 2020. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may file updated trial materials, including their joint pretrial order, requests to charge, joint proposed voir dire questions, and pre-markedexhibits, by no later than Friday, February 26, 2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is s cheduled to begin on Monday, April 26, 2021, at 10:00 A.M. The final pre-trial conference is scheduled for Thursday, April 15, 2021, at 2:30 P.M. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties want a referral for a settlement conference with Magistrate Ju dge Aaron or to the Court-annexed Mediation Program, they may submit a joint letter requesting such a referral at any time. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motions at docket entries 193, 195, 197, and 204. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 10/23/2020) (ama) Modified on 10/23/2020 (ama). (Main Document 253 replaced on 10/23/2020) (ama).

Case 1:17-cv-03392-VEC-SDA Document 253 Filed 10/23/20 Page 1 of 3
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATE FILED: 10/23/2020
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
DAVID A. JOFFE,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
17-CV-3392 (VEC)
-against:
:
ORDER
KING & SPALDING LLP,
:
:
Defendant.
:
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:
WHEREAS on October 22, 2020, the parties appeared before the Court for a hearing on
their motions in limine;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated at the conference:
1. Defendant’s motion to preclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence concerning back pay
and front day damages after September 11, 2018, Dkt. 204, is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to exclude testimony about media coverage surrounding his separation
from his former counsel, Dkt. 195, is DENIED. As Plaintiff withdrew his motion for
briefing on recusal, the Court does not consider this request. Plaintiff clarified during the
hearing that he was also moving to exclude Magistrate Judge Aaron and this Court’s
opinions on the lien issue, Dkts. 113, 184. While media articles are relevant as part of the
analysis of whether Defendant is responsible for Plaintiff’s inability to find comparable
employment, or whether Plaintiff brought continued unemployment upon himself by
triggering an ugly, public separation from his prior counsel, prospective employers are
unlikely to review the opinions themselves as part of diligence associated with a decision
to hire Mr. Joffe. Moreover, the opinions discuss at length Mr. Joffe’s untoward conduct
vis-à-vis his attorney, conduct that has nothing to do with whether King & Spalding

Case 1:17-cv-03392-VEC-SDA Document 253 Filed 10/23/20 Page 2 of 3

discharged him for an improper purpose, but which could be confusing to a jury. In
short, the probative value of these opinions would be substantially outweighed by their
prejudicial impact. Accordingly, the motion to exclude the opinions discussing his prior
counsel’s charging lien (Dkts. 113, 184) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate the trial into liability and damages phases, Dkt. 197, is
DENIED.
4. Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence regarding the relative size of the parties’ legal
teams and resources, Dkt. 193, is DENIED.
5. Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence regarding King and Spalding’s size and
profitability, Dkt. 193, is DENIED.
6. Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence regarding other claims or lawsuits against King
& Spalding implicating professional liability issues, Dkt. 193, is GRANTED.
7. Defendant’s motion to exclude evidence regarding communication with King &
Spalding’s professional liability insurance carrier, Dkt. 193, is GRANTED.
8. Defendant’s motion to exclude King & Spalding’s policy entitled “Claims, Situations
That Might Lead to Claims, And Subpoenas/Discovery Directed To The Firm and Its
Lawyers,’ Dkt. 193, is GRANTED.
9. Defendant’s motion to exclude the privilege log produced by King & Spalding, Dkt. 193,
is GRANTED.
10. Defendant’s motion to exclude statements made by Judge Lewis Kaplan about King &
Spalding’s conduct during the Vringo v. ZTE lawsuit, Dkt. 193, is DENIED.
11. Defendant’s motion to preclude Plaintiff from using the terms “Sanctions Order” and
“Red Flags Email,” Dkt. 193, is GRANTED.

2

Case 1:17-cv-03392-VEC-SDA Document 253 Filed 10/23/20 Page 3 of 3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must brief the issue of whether Plaintiff
is entitled to a jury trial on his ERISA claim. Defendant, which objected to a jury trial with
respect to the ERISA claim, Dkt. 224 at 3, must file a brief in support of this contention by no
later than Friday, November 13, 2020. Plaintiff’s response in opposition is due no later than
Friday, December 4, 2020. Defendant’s reply in support is due no later than Friday,
December 11, 2020.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may file updated trial materials, including
their joint pretrial order, requests to charge, joint proposed voir dire questions, and pre-marked
exhibits, by no later than Friday, February 26, 2021. The updated joint pretrial order should
include the circumstances of each proposed witness, including whether the witness is expected to
testify in person or remotely and whether the witness lives outside the tri-state area. The parties
should confer and include in their updated joint pretrial order their proposed format for remote
testimony, including the desired technological platform and method for handling exhibits.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is scheduled to begin on Monday, April 26,
2021, at 10:00 A.M. The final pre-trial conference is scheduled for Thursday, April 15, 2021,
at 2:30 P.M.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties want a referral for a settlement
conference with Magistrate Judge Aaron or to the Court-annexed Mediation Program, they may
submit a joint letter requesting such a referral at any time.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motions at docket entries
193, 195, 197, and 204.
SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
VALERIE CAPRONI
United States District Judge

Date: October 23, 2020
New York, New York
3