United States District Court, Southern District of New York
January 14, 2003
NEVILLE EVANS, PLAINTIFF,
THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District Judge
As previously noted, the trial of this action will commence on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 at 10 a.m. The Court will not sit with the jury on January 22. Jury sessions will resume on January 23 and will continue on business days other than Mondays until the trial is completed. The Court anticipates sitting with the jury from 9:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. with appropriate lunch, morning and afternoon breaks. Counsel may be required to begin earlier or work later as may be appropriate.
The Court has considered the issues for trial and the pretrial order based on its extensive familiarity with the case as well as the difficulties encountered in the management of this action by virtue of the behavior of counsel on both sides. The parties are directed to show cause, at or before 3 p.m. on January 17, 2003, why the Court should not impose time limits on the presentations of each side such that the case will be ready for instruction of the jury commencing no later than 9:30 a.m. on January 31, 2003. If this or another time limitation is imposed:
1. The presentation by each side would not exceed an
allotment of 13.5 hours.
2. Each side's allotment would be charged with time
spent in opening and closing argument and in the
examination of witnesses (direct or cross, as the case
may be) by its counsel.
3. Side bars and other arguments outside the presence
of the jury while the jury is present in Court would
be charged against the party requesting them.
4. Delays caused by lateness of counsel would be
charged against the party represented by the relevant
attorney, provided, however, that nothing herein shall
limit the Court's ability to impose other sanctions,
which in appropriate circumstances may be case
Counsel shall manage the scheduling of witnesses so that there are no interruptions in the presentation of evidence. Should either side run out of witnesses and evidence available for immediate presentation while the Court is ready to hear evidence, that side will be deemed to have rested its case.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.