Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

N.A.A.C.P. v. A.A. ARMS INC.

United States District Court, Eastern District of New York


May 7, 2003

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF
v.
A.A. ARMS INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF, V. ACUSPORT CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jack Weinstein, Senior District Judge

IN LIMINE EVIDENTIARY RULINGS MAY 5, 2003 ORDER
Motions in limine were heard on Monday, May 5, 2003, at 8:30 a.m. The following rulings were made for the reasons stated orally on the record at the hearing.

1. Plaintiffs Expert Witness Lucy Allen

Defendants' motion to preclude the rebuttal testimony of plaintiffs expert witness Lucy Allen is denied. Ms. Allen will produce any new computer codes or programs, calculations, or other statistical analysis that she will rely on in her testimony to defendants. Defendants may have a brief continuance to look at those materials if necessary.

Defendants' renewed motion to strike the testimony of Ms. Allen is denied. Ms. Allen's technical and other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence and determine the facts. She is qualified as an expert by her knowledge, training, skill, experience, education, and other work done in her professional career. Her testimony was based on sufficient facts and data, and she reliably applied reliable principals and methods to those materials. See Fed.R.Evid. 702.

Disagreement with defendants' experts does not diminish Ms. Allen's qualifications to testify as an expert witness in this matter. There may be multiple disagreements between the experts on either side and among the experts on each side, but all of the experts are distinguished professionals and have done a thorough and commendable job in attempting to analyze difficult data, sometimes for the first time that the data has been available for analysis by experts of any kind, As this court has held in prior in limine evidentiary rulings, the experts for both sides are in compliance with Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, and the bases for their opinions satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 703.

2. Plaintiffs Expert Dr. Jeffrey Fagan

Defendants' motion to preclude rebuttal testimony from plaintiffs expert witness Dr. Jeffrey Fagan is denied. Defendants may question Dr. Fagan at 9:00 in the next courtroom concerning his opinion as a criminologist on the suitability and reliability of the trace database as a source of data for statistical analysis.

3. Other Evidentiary Matters

Defendants' group exhibit 70, a series of materials sent to dealers as a part of the Don't Lie for the Other Guy program, is admitted. Defendants' exhibit 1000, the transcript of the deposition testimony shown during defendants' case of the NAACP's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) witness Mildred Roxborough, is admitted for the purposes of the court and the record for appeal.

All parties may select documents in evidence to place in the juror's notebooks so long as the number and volume of exhibits in the notebooks does not become unduly burdensome.

Parties may, if necessary, reopen the case for the admission of additional pieces of evidence on Tuesday, May 6, 2003 or Wednesday, May 7, 2003. If the parties do not reach agreement on Fabbrica d'Armi Pietro Beretta S.p.A.'s objections to document requests offered by plaintiff or on plaintiffs objections to the admission of certain documents used during the testimony of Dr. Wecker, they may be heard on those matters.

The plaintiffs and the defendants' proposed jury instructions, the court's proposed charge, and the letter from the Attorney General of the State of New York regarding the burden of proof in a public nuisance case under New York law will be considered at the charging conference to be held at the close of plaintiffs rebuttal case. Plaintiff and defendants will each submit a brief paragraph summary of their contentions to be placed in the jury charge. Individual defendants may also submit brief statements to be included if necessary.

Any motions for judgment or other new motions filed will be heard at the time of the charging conference.

SO ORDERED.

20030507

© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.