LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

PLANNED PARENTHOOD et al v AMERICAN COALITION OF LIFE ACTIVISTS ET AL Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 84, CourtName: US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Plaintiff: PLANNED PARENTHOOD et al, State: OR Oregon, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>84, Clients, Daulton, Jury, Conference, Context, Child, Deposition, Testify, Threats, Defense, Testimony, Bailey, Dfw, Michael Bray, Entry, Evidence, Barriers, Ferrara, David, Bill, Judge, Instructions, Honor, United States, State Action, Witnesses, Airport, Opinion, Violence, Abortion Providers, American, Regulation, Communicate, Pro-life, Security, Pretrial Conference, Conference Room, Accommodation, Threat, Instruction, Judgment Hearing Representing, Exhibits, Punitive Damages , ContentID: 120243711

Case Documents
1 2001-04-02 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 112970
5 pages
PDF
2 1998-12-03 PRETRIAL CONF 12398
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 110219
73 pages
PDF
3 1998-11-02 PRETRIAL CONF 11298
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 110216
176 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 3 documents , 254 pages
Price: $ 29.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ENTRY
BARRIERS
UNITED STATES
STATE ACTION
AIRPORT
AMERICAN
REGULATION
TEXAS
AUTHORITY
EVIDENCE
POLICY
COURT
MEMORANDUM
SUPPORT
ARTICULATION
LEASEHOLDS
DEFENSE
MONOPOLIZES
COMPETITION
ROUTES
ACTIVELY SUPERVISES
ACTION IMMUNITY
MONOPOLY POWER
MARKET
ADMISSION
ANTITRUST
DOMINANT POSITION
AIRLINES
DETERMINATION
                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

_________________________________)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                   ))
                        Plaintiff,          ))          Civil Action No.: 99-1180-JTM
                v.                          ))
AMR CORPORATION,                            )
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and                )
AMR EAGLE HOLDING                           )
CORPORATION,                                ))
                        Defendants.         )
________________________________  )


                MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF  PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
      IN LIMINE  TO PRECLUDE ADMISSION OF "STATE ACTION" EVIDENCE

        Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, the United States moves in limine to

preclude the admission of evidence that the State of Texas has articulated a clear policy to

regulate competition at airports in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area and has conferred authority on the

cities of Dallas and Fort Worth and/or the DFW Airport Authority to implement business

practices in furtherance of that state policy, and the admission of evidence that the DFW Airport

Authority actively supervises the use of facilities at DFW, including certain activities of lessees,

such as subleasing and transfers of leaseholds. Such evidence, offered by way of presenting a state

action immunity defense to this antitrust action, is inadmissible because it is irrelevant.

        The only conduct for which American appears to be claiming state action immunity

involves American's operation of leaseholds at DFW.  (Pretrial Order at 74).   While the United

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION IN LIMINE                                  1



States may seek to introduce evidence that American's dominant position at DFW (however

achieved) raises barriers to entry by other airlines into DFW routes, the United States does not

intend to challenge American's operation of leaseholds at DFW.  The sole issue presented by this

SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ADMISSION OF "STATE ACTION"
  • Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, the United States moves in limine to
  • regulate competition at airports in the Dallas/Ft.
  • Worth area and has conferred authority on the
  • practices in furtherance of that state policy, and the admission of evidence that the DFW
  • Authority actively supervises the use of facilities at DFW, including certain activities of
  • action immunity defense to this antitrust action, is inadmissible because it is irrelevant.
  • The only conduct for which American appears to be claiming state action immunity
  • involves American's operation of leaseholds at DFW.
  • States may seek to introduce evidence that American's dominant position at DFW (however
  • achieved) raises barriers to entry by other airlines into DFW routes,
  • entry created by American's leaseholds at DFW in determining whether American monopolizes
  • certain DFW routes.
  • Defendants AMR Corporation, American Airlines Inc., and AMR Eagle Holding
  • To satisfy the "clear articulation"
  • While the State of Texas
  • may have articulated a policy regarding the regulation of airports, the United States has
  • Circuit recognizes that "entry barriers are relevant to the analyis of market or monopoly
  • Circuit defines entry barriers as "particular characteristics of a market which impede entry
  • determination of whether conditions exist at DFW which make entry there difficult.

  • 2 . PRETRIAL CONF 12398

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DAULTON
    JURY
    CHILD
    BAILEY
    MICHAEL BRAY
    CLIENTS
    FERRARA
    DAVID
    BILL
    JUDGE
    COUNSEL
    COURT
    THREAT
    INSTRUCTION
    JUDGMENT HEARING REPRESENTING
    DEPOSITION
    EXHIBITS
    PUNITIVE DAMAGES
    DEFENSE
    FBI
    EVIDENCE
    PLAINTIFFS
    CONSPIRACY
    QUESTIONNAIRES
    DIRECT EXAMINATIONS
    SETOVER
    VIOLATION
    COMMUNICATION
    CONTEXT
    
    
    
    
          1               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
          2                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
    
          3    PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE                  )
               COLUMBIA/WILLAMETTE, INC., et al. )
          4                                               )
                                  Plaintiffs,             ) CV 95-1671 JO
          5                                               )
                        vs.                               ) December 3, 1998
          6                                               )
               AMERICAN COALITION OF LIFE                 ) Portland, Oregon
          7    ACTIVISTS, et al.                          )) Volume II
          8                      Defendants.              )
    
          9
    
         10                     TRANSCRIPT OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
    
         11               BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT E. JONES
    
         12                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
    
         13                                APPEARANCES
    
         14
    
         15    FOR THE PLAINTIFF: CAROL BERNICK
                                       Davis Wright Tremaine
         16                            1300 S.W. Fifth Ave., Suite 2300
                                       Portland, Or 97201
         17                            503 778-5233
    
         18                            MARIA T. VULLO
                                       Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, etc.
         19                            1285 Avenue of the Americas
                                       New York, NY 10019-6064
         20                            212 373-3346
    
         21    FOR THE DEFENDANTS CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA
                                       American Catholic Lawyers Assn.
         22                            10 Audrey Place
                                       Fairfield, NJ 07004
         23                            201 244-1998
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • 21 FOR THE DEFENDANTS CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA
  • David Daulton's office called and said that the child is
  • I called Bill
  • He had not been in communication with Daulton.
  • 13 Daulton is the -- tell me, who is Kevin Gibbs of Seattle?
  • 16 judgment hearing representing Michael Bray.
  • But Daulton is apparently the chief counsel for American
  • 23 Dreste, and Charles Wysong are Mr. Belz's clients, to my
  • By the way, the jury -- we had a fine turnout,
  • Bailey has been a participant in this case.
  • 16 to prepare eight direct examinations and review thousands
  • 24 aspects of the defense,
  • 16 way the evidence plays out.
  • 14 rest of the court and clear off the time that we would talk
  • violation of any federal law.
  • It is certainly relevant as to punitive damages,
  • reasonable person would not interpret these to be a threat,
  • 17 against the plaintiffs in violation of FACE and RICO.
  • 11 their protestations don't mean anything, because the judge
  • 24 your punitive damage instruction is -- just simply cites to
  • 25 that Mr. Ferrara made to our redactions of some exhibits.
  • 20 commentary how there is no pro-life conspiracy,
  • 21 FBI ridiculed the notion.
  • can't be taken out of context.
  • 23 Michael Bray, in Life Advocate, where he discusses his
  • 18 one way to guarantee no setover.
  • Burnett's deposition as a -- so Mr. Daulton wouldn't have
  • 19 questionnaires now.

  • 3 . PRETRIAL CONF 11298

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CLIENTS
    CONFERENCE
    CONTEXT
    TESTIFY
    DEFENDANTS
    THREATS
    JURY
    TESTIMONY
    PLAINTIFFS
    COUNSEL
    DEPOSITION
    INSTRUCTIONS
    HONOR
    WITNESSES
    OPINION
    VIOLENCE
    ABORTION PROVIDERS
    COMMUNICATE
    PRO-LIFE
    SECURITY
    PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
    CONFERENCE ROOM
    ACCOMMODATION
    INFORMAL ORGANIZATION
    AUTHENTICATE
    DEFENSE
    POSTERS
    CLINICS
    COLUMBIA/WILLAMETTE
    
    
    
    
    
          1                 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
          2                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
    
          3    PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE                    )
               COLUMBIA/WILLAMETTE, INC., et al. )
          4                                                 )
                                    Plaintiffs,             ) CV 95-1671 JO
          5                                                 )
                          vs.                               ) November 2, 1998
          6                                                 )
               AMERICAN COALITION OF LIFE                   ) Portland, Oregon
          7    ACTIVISTS, et al.                            )) Volume I
          8                        Defendants.              )
    
          9
    
         10                       TRANSCRIPT OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
    
         11                 BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT E. JONES
    
         12                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
    
         13                                  APPEARANCES
    
         14
    
         15    FOR THE PLAINTIFF: CAROL BERNICK
                                         Davis Wright Tremaine
         16                              1300 S.W. Fifth Ave., Suite 2300
                                         Portland, Or 97201
         17                              503 778-5233
    
         18                              MARIA T. VULLO
                                         ELIZABETH MARINGER
         19                              Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, etc.
                                         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         20                              New York, NY 10019-6064
                                         212 373-3346
         21
               FOR DEFENDANTS:           MARK BELZ
         22    Dreste, Wysong,           Belz & Jones, P.C.
               Foreman                   7777 Bonhomme Street, Suite 1710
         23                              St. Louis, Mo. 63105-1911
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • may go up to the big conference room after we get started.
  • 11 but we can make accommodation to him as far as our -- he
  • All I did is relate, to the court, what my
  • 18 from being present at the trial, and counsel can represent
  • intends to testify at some point during the trial.
  • 17 expert testimony business.
  • 15 it's -- I just got -- it's a 119-page opinion.
  • 22 threats, in order to not to be protected, under the First
  • so the jury can understand what this battle is
  • defendants -- an objection to the use of experts,
  • 12 your Honor remembers when it was filed.
  • 17 threatening on its face but could be in context,
  • 10 grant the plaintiffs to right to use experts,
  • 12 are going to say by deposition.
  • encourage violence against abortion providers.
  • 11 expert proposes to testify that our clients are members of
  • 13 people who bomb clinics,
  • 14 all part of the same informal organization.
  • involving essentially the entire pro-life
  • give overviews of your own, with witnesses of your own, so
  • understanding of how the defendants communicate their
  • will be made for security purposes for everybody.
  • 15 letters, to defense counsel, asking whether their clients
  • Columbia/Willamette, and she was deposed in this case.
  • 25 wanted posters of Dr. Gunn and Dr. Britton.
  • 24 someone who can authenticate any documents that we believe
  •    |