Ray v. Balestriere Fariello
- Rochon
- 1:18-cv-11211
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ray v. Balestriere Fariello, Judge Rochon ruled on trial exhibits and jury instructions, sustaining one hearsay objection without prejudice.
Ames Ray, Balestriere Fariello and the other defendants, the unidentified John Does 1–5, and the parties’ proposed trial evidence and jury instructions.
What happened
In Ray v. Balestriere Fariello, the court addressed the parties’ joint letter about evidence and preliminary jury instructions before trial. Defendants waived objections to Plaintiff’s exhibits 26 and 27, and the court declined to give a requested jury instruction about those exhibits.
The court recorded several other exhibit withdrawals and waivers, required revised or newly submitted exhibits by January 19, 2023, and sustained Plaintiff’s hearsay objection to the first sentence of exhibit DX-108 without prejudice. The court also approved preliminary jury instructions, including an instruction about attorney-client privilege, and ordered Plaintiff to dismiss John Does 1–5 by stipulation or state that he would not do so.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued the order on January 18, 2023. The order managed evidence and jury instructions; it did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Ray v. Balestriere Fariello · No. 1:18-cv-11211
- Rochon
- Jan. 18, 2023
Background
The court reviewed the parties’ joint letter dated January 17, 2023, concerning proposed trial exhibits and preliminary jury instructions.
Rulings on Plaintiff’s Exhibits
Defendants waived their objections to Plaintiff’s exhibits 26 and 27. The court declined to give Defendants’ requested instruction about those exhibits because it would improperly comment on the evidence and influence decisions reserved for the jury.
Rulings on Defendants’ Exhibits
Defendants withdrew exhibit DX-7. Plaintiff waived objections to exhibits DX-79, DX-100, DX-104, DX-113, DX-128, and DX-134, subject to Defendants separating them into agreed subparts and submitting revised exhibits after conferring with Plaintiff by January 19, 2023. Because the joint letter identified DX-108 as the only remaining disputed exhibit, the court concluded that Plaintiff had not renewed, and therefore had waived, objections to DX-25, DX-66, DX-89, DX-106, DX-112, DX-137, and DX-151.
Plaintiff objected on hearsay grounds to the first sentence of DX-108. Defendants argued that the sentence was not hearsay because they would not offer it to prove the truth of what it said, but they did not identify another purpose for offering it. The court sustained the objection without prejudice to reconsidering it if Defendants identify a legitimate non-hearsay purpose. Defendants were ordered to provide a redacted version of DX-108 by January 19, 2023.
Defendants were also ordered to submit proposed exhibits DX-163, DX-164, DX-165, and DX-166 by January 19, 2023. Before submitting them, the parties had to confer in an effort to resolve objections; any remaining objection and response were to be submitted with the exhibits.
Jury Instructions and John Does 1–5
The parties raised no objections to the court’s PowerPoint containing preliminary jury instructions. The court stated that it would present those instructions before opening statements. It also stated that it would give the parties’ jointly proposed preliminary instruction about attorney-client privilege at that time.
The court ordered Plaintiff, by January 19, 2023, either to file a stipulation signed by all parties dismissing the action as to John Does 1–5 or to file a letter stating that Plaintiff did not intend to dismiss them.
Disposition and Effect
This was a case-management and evidence order addressing exhibit objections, jury instructions, and the status of certain defendants. It did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.