Read Judge Carney's comments: - "The parties agree this cancelled check was never disclosed during discovery. Additionally, although Ms. Meola presented the check to her counsel three days prior to trial, Mr. Potter, counsel for Ms. Meola, did not inform defense counsel of the sudden discovery of the check. This lack of disclosure is a violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties have known, at least as of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, that whether or not Ms. Meola visited the Aztec Hotel was a hotly contested issue in this lawsuit. Notwithstanding the clear relevance of the check, Mr. Potter has not provided a sufficient justification for why his client did not produce the check earlier. Despite this violation of Federal Rules, a violation for which the Court could exclude the evidence and sanction plaintiff for withholding evidence, the Court has accepted the check into evidence." (Footnote 10 on pages 7 and 8; emphasis added)
- "MS. MEOLA'S TESTIMONY IS UNPERSUASIVE" (Page 10, line 4; emphasis added)
- "Ms. Meola's stated justifications for visiting the Aztec Hotel have changed throughout the lawsuit." (Page 10, lines 5-6; emphasis added)
- "The context and purpose of Ms. Meola's trip has entirely changed since the summary judgment stage. Indeed, only after Ms. Reece provided evidence that the Brass Elephant did not have a band playing on Wednesday, January 1, 2003 did Ms. Meola begin to assert that the purpose of her trip was exchanging Christmas gifts." The Court finds this alteration in the story line significant." (Page 10, line 17 to page 11, line 2, emphasis added)
- " . . . Ms. Meola's stated time of visit contradicts the chronology of events provided by . . . two witnesses the Court finds consistent and credible." (page 11, lines 4-6; emphasis added)
- "MR. BURNS TESTIMONY IS INCONCLUSIVE" (Page 12; line 1; emphasis added)
- " . . . Mr. Burns contradicted his prior testimony . . ." (Page 12, lines 15-16; emphasis added)
- "The remainder of Mr. Burns' testimony was superficial, vague and lacking in detail. Accordingly, Mr. Burns' testimony does not convince the Court . . ." (Page 12, lines 17-19; emphasis added).
|
