+ All Categories
Home > Documents > 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Date post: 18-Mar-2016
Category:
Upload: milton-sandy
View: 219 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
 
Popular Tags:
42
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION KMART CORPORATION PLAINTIFF VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:11-CV-103-GHD-JAD THE KROGER CO., E&A SOUTHEAST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; FULTON IMPROVEMENTS, LLC; KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; CITY OF CORINTH; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE; AND ABC CORPORATION DEFENDANTS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE COMES NOW, Defendant The Kroger Co. (“Kroger”), by and through its counsel of record, and respectfully submits this its Response in Opposition to Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence and in support thereof states the following, to wit: 1. Kmart Corporation (“Kmart”) argues in its Motion in Limine to Exclude to Exclude Evidence (“Kmart’s Motion”), Doc. No. 352, that what it describes as an “unsigned letter dated September 25, 2010” (the “September 25 Letter”) is due to be excluded “as being not properly authenticated and as constituting inadmissible hearsay.” [Doc. No. 352 at 1] Kmart bases this argument on testimony it obtained from the deposition of the corporate representative of Fulton Improvements, LLC (“Fulton”). [See Doc. No. 353 at 2-4] 2. The September 25 Letter indicates that it is from Melissa Green, whom the letter identifies as a regional human resources director for Kmart Retail, to an unknown employee of Kmart’s store number 4883 located in Corinth, Mississippi. [Exhibit A, exhibit 24 thereto] The September 25 Letter advises that no decision has been made on whether or not this particular store will reopen to the public and that, as an apparent consequence, this employee’s employment with Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 362 Filed: 01/27/14 1 of 5 PageID #: 7056
Transcript
Page 1: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

EASTERN DIVISION KMART CORPORATION

PLAINTIFF

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:11-CV-103-GHD-JAD THE KROGER CO., E&A SOUTHEAST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; FULTON IMPROVEMENTS, LLC; KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; CITY OF CORINTH; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE; AND ABC CORPORATION DEFENDANTS

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

COMES NOW, Defendant The Kroger Co. (“Kroger”), by and through its counsel of

record, and respectfully submits this its Response in Opposition to Motion In Limine to Exclude

Evidence and in support thereof states the following, to wit:

1. Kmart Corporation (“Kmart”) argues in its Motion in Limine to Exclude to Exclude

Evidence (“Kmart’s Motion”), Doc. No. 352, that what it describes as an “unsigned letter dated

September 25, 2010” (the “September 25 Letter”) is due to be excluded “as being not properly

authenticated and as constituting inadmissible hearsay.” [Doc. No. 352 at 1] Kmart bases this

argument on testimony it obtained from the deposition of the corporate representative of Fulton

Improvements, LLC (“Fulton”). [See Doc. No. 353 at 2-4]

2. The September 25 Letter indicates that it is from Melissa Green, whom the letter

identifies as a regional human resources director for Kmart Retail, to an unknown employee of

Kmart’s store number 4883 located in Corinth, Mississippi. [Exhibit A, exhibit 24 thereto] The

September 25 Letter advises that no decision has been made on whether or not this particular store

will reopen to the public and that, as an apparent consequence, this employee’s employment with

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 362 Filed: 01/27/14 1 of 5 PageID #: 7056

Page 2: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

2

Kmart will terminate in September 2010, adding that should the store be reopened the employee

would be able to apply for a position at the store. [Exhibit A, exhibit 24 thereto].

3. As to its arguments regarding proper authentication, Kmart appears to be relying

solely on the provisions of FED.R.EVID. 901(b)(1), which concern the authentication by

“[t]estimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.” [See Doc. No. 353 at 2-4] However, as

demonstrated herein, the September 25 Letter may be properly authenticated pursuant to

FED.R.EVID. 901(b)(4), which concern authentication by the appearance, content, and substance of

a document taken together along with the relevant circumstances. Moreover, Kmart’s contention

that the September 25 Letter constitutes hearsay is simply not credible, as the document is clearly

non-hearsay as an admission pursuant to FED.R.EVID. 801(d)(2).

4. In support of its Motion, Kroger relies upon the pleadings filed in this action, its the

supporting memorandum, and the following exhibits:

Exhibit A: Excerpts of the Deposition of Fulton Improvements, LLC.

Exhibit B: Excerpts of the Deposition of Kmart Corporation.

Exhibit C: Google Search Result.

Exhibit D: LinkedIn Page for Melissa Green.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Kroger respectfully requests this honorable Court to

deny Kmart’s Motion. Said Defendant further prays for general relief.

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 362 Filed: 01/27/14 2 of 5 PageID #: 7057

Page 3: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

3

This, the 27th day of January 2014.

Respectfully submitted, THE KROGER CO. By: s/David A. Norris Of Counsel

Edley H. Jones III (MSB No. 3201) David A. Norris (MSB No. 100616) McGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC City Center South, Suite 1100 200 South Lamar Street (Zip - 39201) Post Office Drawer 22949 Jackson, Mississippi 39225-2949 Telephone: (769) 524-2314 Facsimile: (769) 524-2333 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for The Kroger Co.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned David A. Norris, McGlinchey Stafford PLLC, hereby certify that on this

day, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which

sent notification of such filing to the following:

Ryan O. Lumainis James M. Garner John T. Balhoff, II SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, LLC 909 Poydras Street, 28th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 Email: [email protected]

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 362 Filed: 01/27/14 3 of 5 PageID #: 7058

Page 4: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

4

Mary Clift Abdalla FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, PLLC 200 S. Lamar Street, Suite 100 Jackson, MS 39201 Email: [email protected] Walter G. Watkins , Jr. FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, PLLC P.O. Box 22608 Jackson, MS 39225-2608 Email: [email protected] Walter Garner Watkins , III FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, PLLC P.O. Box 22608 Jackson, MS 39225-2608 Email: [email protected] Gerald Haggart Jacks JACKS LUCIANO, P.A. P. O. Box 1209 Cleveland, MS 38732-1209 Email: [email protected] Jamie Ferguson Jacks JACKS LUCIANO, P.A. P. O. Box 1209 Cleveland, MS 38732-1209 Email: [email protected] Charles E. Ross WISE, CARTER, CHILD & CARAWAY P. O. Box 651 Jackson, MS 39205-0651 Email: [email protected] Terry Dwayne Little DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL - Oxford P.O. Box 1396 Oxford, MS 38655 Email: [email protected]

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 362 Filed: 01/27/14 4 of 5 PageID #: 7059

Page 5: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

5

Wilton V. Byars , III DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL P.O. Box 1396 Oxford, MS 38655 Email: [email protected] John Evans Gough , Jr. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE - Oxford 900 Jefferson Avenue Oxford, MS 38655-3608 Email: [email protected] Linda F. Cooper WISE CARTER CHILD & CARAWAY, P.A. P.O. Box 651 Jackson, MS 39205-0651

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the

following non-ECF participants:

None

THIS, the 21st day of January 2014.

s/ David A. Norris David A. Norris 277729.1

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 362 Filed: 01/27/14 5 of 5 PageID #: 7060

Page 6: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-1 Filed: 01/21/14 1 of 10 PageID #: 6981

Page 7: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-1 Filed: 01/21/14 2 of 10 PageID #: 6982

Page 8: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-1 Filed: 01/21/14 3 of 10 PageID #: 6983

Page 9: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-1 Filed: 01/21/14 4 of 10 PageID #: 6984

Page 10: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-1 Filed: 01/21/14 5 of 10 PageID #: 6985

Page 11: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-1 Filed: 01/21/14 6 of 10 PageID #: 6986

Page 12: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-1 Filed: 01/21/14 7 of 10 PageID #: 6987

Page 13: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-1 Filed: 01/21/14 8 of 10 PageID #: 6988

Page 14: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-1 Filed: 01/21/14 9 of 10 PageID #: 6989

Page 15: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-1 Filed: 01/21/14 10 of 10 PageID #: 6990

Page 16: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-2 Filed: 01/21/14 1 of 4 PageID #: 6991

Page 17: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-2 Filed: 01/21/14 2 of 4 PageID #: 6992

Page 18: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-2 Filed: 01/21/14 3 of 4 PageID #: 6993

Page 19: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-2 Filed: 01/21/14 4 of 4 PageID #: 6994

Page 20: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 1 of 23 PageID #: 6995

Page 21: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 2 of 23 PageID #: 6996

Page 22: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 3 of 23 PageID #: 6997

Page 23: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 4 of 23 PageID #: 6998

Page 24: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 5 of 23 PageID #: 6999

Page 25: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 6 of 23 PageID #: 7000

Page 26: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 7 of 23 PageID #: 7001

Page 27: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 8 of 23 PageID #: 7002

Page 28: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 9 of 23 PageID #: 7003

Page 29: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 10 of 23 PageID #: 7004

Page 30: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 11 of 23 PageID #: 7005

Page 31: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 12 of 23 PageID #: 7006

Page 32: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 13 of 23 PageID #: 7007

Page 33: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 14 of 23 PageID #: 7008

Page 34: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 15 of 23 PageID #: 7009

Page 35: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 16 of 23 PageID #: 7010

Page 36: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 17 of 23 PageID #: 7011

Page 37: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 18 of 23 PageID #: 7012

Page 38: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 19 of 23 PageID #: 7013

Page 39: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 20 of 23 PageID #: 7014

Page 40: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 21 of 23 PageID #: 7015

Page 41: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 22 of 23 PageID #: 7016

Page 42: 362 responseinoppositiontomotioninlimine krogercombine

Case: 1:11-cv-00103-GHD-DAS Doc #: 356-3 Filed: 01/21/14 23 of 23 PageID #: 7017


Recommended