 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
US MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE-MEETING COMPETITION DEFENSE-2
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE MEETING COMPETITION UNITED STATES PLAINTIFF COURT MOTION LIMINE ACT AMERICAN SUPPORT UNDERMINE GOALS SHERMAN ACT PREVAIL FAITH PLAINTIFF FILES ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM WHEREFORE STATES RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS COURT GRANT ORDER PRECLUDING AMERICAN OFFERING MARK NIEFER JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION SUITE WASHINGTON MOT |
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. )
_________________________________)
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
RELATED TO A MEETING COMPETITION DEFENSE
Plaintiff United States hereby moves in limine to exclude evidence or argument for a
competition" defense pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 402. Plaintiff believes any such argument or
is irrelevant because there is no judicial authority for the defense. Moreover, the defense would
undermine the goals of the Sherman Act. Furthermore, even if the Court were to consider making
new law, American cannot prevail on a "meeting competition" defense because it failed to act in good
faith.
In support of this Motion, Plaintiff files its accompanying Memorandum.
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and
enter an order precluding American from offering argument or evidence in support of a "meeting
competition" defense.
Date: April 2, 2001
Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff United States
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ADMISSION OF STATE ACTION EVIDENCE-2
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT STATES DISTRICT COURT HEREBY CERTIFY OVERNIGHT MAIL MOTION LIMINE PRECLUDE ADMISSION STATE ACTION EVIDENCE MEMORANDUM SUPPORT THEREOF DEBRA PEARLSTEIN WEIL MANGES YORK ATTORNEY |
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. ))
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I caused to be served on Defendants' Counsel referenced below, by
hand and via overnight mail on the 2d day of April, 2001, a copy of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine
to Preclude Admission of "State Action" Evidence, Memorandum in support thereof, and this
Certificate of Service.
Debra Pearlstein
Weil, Gotshal & Manges
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Tel: (212) 310-8686
Fax: (212) 310-8007
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
By /"s"/
Rebekah J. French
Attorney for Plaintiff
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF DEADLINES
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
REVISED SCHEDULING RESPONSES DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS DEADLINES CLARIFICATION CORRECTION REPLIES PROPOSALS UNITED STATES COURT PARTIES PLAINTIFF AMOUNT UNOPPOSED REQUEST AMERICAN ORIGINAL ORDER EXHIBITS FILING PARAGRAPH RELATING CONSISTENT AGREEMENT DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS SPECIFY INADVERTENT DEFENDANTS OPPOSE PROPOSED REDUCING DEPARTS |
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. )
_________________________________)
PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OR
CORRECTION OF CERTAIN DEADLINES CONTAINED IN THE
COURT'S APRIL 14, 2000, REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
The United States hereby requests that the Court clarify or correct the deadlines contained
in the Court's April 14, 2000, Revised Scheduling Order ("Revised Order") that specify the time
by which parties must file responses and replies to dispositive motions. With respect to the
deadline for responses to dispositive motions, the United States has reason to believe that the
deadline specified in the Revised Order may have been inadvertent. With respect to the deadline
for replies to dispositive motions, counsel for Defendants (collectively "American") has stated that
American will not oppose Plaintiff's request for correction of the deadline for responses to
dispositive motions if the request includes a corresponding request for additional time for replies
to dispositive motions. Finally, Plaintiff and American agree that two other minor matters should
be clarified in the Revised Scheduling Order.
PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OR CORRECTION
OF CERTAIN DEADLINES IN REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER -- 1
Responses . The Revised Order directs that dispositive motions be served by January 8,
2001, that responses be filed by February 2, 2001, and that replies be filed by February 19, 2001.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
