Robocall Defendant Opposes Motion to Restrict What Can Be Said Before a Jury
Scott Shapiro, one of the defendants in the robocall complaint brought by eight states under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and individual state statutes (see 2303100036), objects to the plaintiffs’ May 8 motion in limine to bar Shapiro’s attorneys from…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
raising 25 specific issues before a jury without first asking the court’s permission outside the jury’s presence, said his response Friday (docket 4:20-cv-02021) in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Houston. The motion would bar any mention of the defendants’ financial hardship resulting from their defense of the case. It would also prohibit mentioning the number of attorneys and staff employed during the case in the states’ attorneys general offices. None of the states’ counsel made any effort to confer with Shapiro’s lawyers about the 25 issues, and the motion should be denied “for this reason alone,” said Shapiro’s response. The motion “also is fundamentally defective” because it fails to make reference “to specific documents, testimony or evidence,” and is supported “only by citation to various rules of evidence and without any discussion as to why those rules support its position,” it said. The case is subject to being called on short notice for a jury trial in June.