Ashmore v. CGI Inc
- Analisa Torres
- 1:11-cv-08611
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ashmore v. CGI Inc., Judge Torres denied Ashmore’s request to preclude trial arguments about his contract-paralegal work for counsel and their relationship.
Benjamin Ashmore, CGI, Inc., and CGI Federal Inc.; the order concerned proposed trial arguments about Ashmore’s work for his counsel and their relationship.
What happened
In Ashmore v. CGI Inc., Benjamin Ashmore asked the court to prevent CGI, Inc. and CGI Federal Inc. from arguing or suggesting at trial that anything improper existed about his work as a contract paralegal for his counsel or about their relationship.
The defendants opposed the request. The court noted that pretrial motions were due on January 17, 2020, making Ashmore’s request late. The court also said no advance ruling was needed because it could address unfairly prejudicial statements during trial.
Judge Analisa Torres denied Ashmore’s request. The order did not decide whether the proposed evidence or arguments were ultimately proper at trial.
The detailed version
- Ashmore v. CGI Inc · No. 1:11-cv-08611
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 25, 2020
Background
Benjamin Ashmore sent a letter dated February 13, 2020, asking for permission to seek an order preventing Defendants from arguing or suggesting to the jury that anything improper or inappropriate existed regarding either: (1) Ashmore’s work as a contract paralegal for his counsel while representing Ashmore at trial or in the case; or (2) the relationship between Ashmore, his counsel, and the counsel’s firm. CGI, Inc. and CGI Federal Inc. opposed the request by letter filed February 24, 2020.
Court’s reasoning
The court treated the request as a proposed motion to exclude or limit trial evidence and argument before trial. It noted that pretrial submissions, including motions in limine—motions seeking advance rulings about trial evidence—were due January 17, 2020. The court stated that the request’s untimeliness alone supported denial. It also concluded that an advance ruling was unnecessary because the court could police unfairly prejudicial statements by counsel during trial.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres denied Ashmore’s request. The order did not make a final ruling on whether particular evidence or arguments concerning Ashmore’s work or his relationship with counsel would be admissible or appropriate at trial.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.