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
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
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.