LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR CORP v WILLIAMS ENERGY MARKETING and TRADING CO Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: 89, CourtName: US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Plaintiff: CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR CORP, State: CA California, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>89, United States, Witnesses, Evidence, Testimony, Cir, Jury, Reasons, Punishment, Exclusion, Charges, Prohibiting, Transcripts, Motion, Violation, Evid, Inadmissibility, Price-fixing, American, Exception, Limine, Prices, Justification, Conspiracy, Conviction, Witness Qualifies, Economic Justification, Guilt, Innocence, Sentencing, Aes, American Airlines, Washington, District, Deposition, Pursuant, York, Antitrust Division, Justice, Suite, Costs, Bar, Llp, Berlin, Llc, Ferc, Lectric Tariff , ContentID: 120245974

Case Documents
1   TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 123712
3 pages
PDF
2   MOTION IN LIMINE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 113787
13 pages
PDF
3 2000-08-21 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 8-4-00 2
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 112992
2 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 3 documents , 18 pages
Price: $ 29.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
BAR
LLP
BERLIN
LLC
FERC
LECTRIC TARIFF
FLOOR
MONTGOMERY STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
EDWARD BERLIN
JOHN
FERGUSON
TIMOTHY
NGAU
SWIDLER BERLIN SHEREFF
BERLIN SHEREFF FRIEDMAN
WASHINGTON
CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM
TRADING
AES PLACERITA
AES ALAMITOS
HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEFENDANTS
COURT
TION
SYSTEM OPERATOR CORPORATION
ROCEDURE
PLAINTIFF
UNDERTAKING
  1  Norma G. Formanek (CA Bar No. 111474)
       Laura C. Roche (CA Bar No. 174596)
 2     FARELLA  BRAUN  &  MARTEL  LLP
       Russ Building,  30th Floor
 3     235 Montgomery Street
       San Francisco, CA  94104
 4     Telephone: (415) 954-4400
       Facsimile:  (415) 954-4480
 5     Edward Berlin
 6  John R. Ferguson
       Timothy A. Ngau
 7     SWIDLER BERLIN  SHEREFF FRIEDMAN,  LLP
       3000 K Street, N.W.
 8     Washington, DC 20007
       Telephone: (202) 424-7500
 9     Facsimile:  (202) 424-7643

10  [Appearing Pro Hat  Vice]

11  Attorneys for Plaintiff
       CALIFORNIA  INDEPENDENT SYSTEM
12  OPERATOR CORPORATION

13
                                        UNITED  STATES DISTRICT COURT
14                             FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15                                          SACRAMENTO DIVISION
16

17  CALIFORNIA  INDEPENDENT SYSTEM                         Civil  No.
18  OPERATOR CORPORATION,                                  [PROPOSED] TEMPORARY
19                       Plaintiff,                        RESTRAINING  ORDER
20              vs.

21  WILLIAMS  ENERGY  MARKETING  AND
       TRADING  COMI'ANY,  AES PLACERITA,
22  INC.; AES ALAMITOS,  LLC; AES
       HUNTINGTON  BEACH,  LLC;  AES
23  REDONDO  BEACH,  UC;  DYNEGY  POWER
       CORP
24                       Defendants.
25

26

27

28

SNIPPETS:
  • Norma G. Formanek (CA Bar No. 111474)
  • Russ Building, 30th Floor
  • 235 Montgomery Street San Francisco,
  • Edward Berlin
  • John R. Ferguson Timothy A. Ngau
  • SWIDLER BERLIN SHEREFF FRIEDMAN, LLP
  • 3000 K Street, N.W. 8 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone:
  • CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM
  • TRADING COMI'ANY, AES PLACERITA,
  • 22 INC.; AES ALAMITOS, LLC; AES HUNTINGTON BEACH, LLC; AES
  • require defendants'
  • The Court has considered
  • good cause for Cal IS O 's m o tion.
  • System Operator Corporation FERC E lectric Tariff.
  • P rocedure
  • Plaintiff shall file an undertaking

  • 2 . MOTION IN LIMINE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    UNITED STATES
    DEFENDANTS
    EVIDENCE
    TESTIMONY
    COURT
    CIR
    JURY
    REASONS
    PUNISHMENT
    EXCLUSION
    CHARGES
    PROHIBITING
    TRANSCRIPTS
    MOTION
    VIOLATION
    EVID
    INADMISSIBILITY
    PRICE-FIXING
    EXCEPTION
    LIMINE
    PRICES
    JUSTIFICATION
    CONSPIRACY
    CONVICTION
    WITNESS QUALIFIES
    ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION
    GUILT
    INNOCENCE
    SENTENCING
    
                                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                                   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                                   LUBBOCK DIVISION
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )                                    Criminal No.  5-95CR-074-C
                                                                   )
    v.                                                             )           Filed: 12/13/95
                                                                   )
    OBERKAMPF SUPPLY                                               )           Violation:
    OF LUBBOCK, INC.;                                              )
                                                                   )
    CYRIL REASONER; AND                                            )           15 U.S.C. § 1
                                                                   )
    CLOWE & COWAN, INC.,                                           )
                                                                   )
         Defendants.
                                                                   )
                                            UNITED STATES' MOTION IN LIMINE
    
                         Pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and for the
    
    reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the United States hereby moves that the
    
    Court enter an Order:
    
                         1.          Prohibiting the Defendants from offering evidence of the following
    
    basis that it is irrelevant to the antitrust violation with which the Defendants are charged:
    
                                     a.           Evidence of economic justification for entering into
    
                                                  participating in a price fixing agreement; and
    
                                     b.           Evidence of economic reasonableness of prices charged
    
                                                  Defendants and their co-conspirators pursuant to the
    
                                                  conspiracy.
    
    
    
    
    
                                                                    1
    
    
    
                    2.      Prohibiting the Defendants from introducing the following evidence at
    
    trial on the ground that it is irrelevant to the charges against the Defendants and the fact finding
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the United States hereby moves that the
  • Court enter an Order:
  • basis that it is irrelevant to the antitrust violation with which the Defendants are charged:
  • Prohibiting the Defendants from introducing the following evidence at
  • trial on the ground that it is irrelevant to the charges against the Defendants and the fact
  • R. Evid.
  • and therefore prohibiting potential witnesses
  • case, unless the witness qualifies under an exception to the rule of exclusion, transcripts
  • or pre-trial testimony given by other potential or actual trial witnesses.
  • This Memorandum sets forth the reasons for the relief sought and the
  • INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE REGARDING REASONABLENESS OF PRICES AND ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION
  • attempt to argue that the prices charged to their customers pursuant to the price-fixing
  • The Defendants have been charged with conspiring to fix prices, a per se violation
  • conspiracy was motivated by good intentions, business necessity or a desire to benefit the
  • INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE REGARDING PUNISHMENT OR COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF CONVICTION
  • inadmissible before the jury.
  • the jury in any manner in arriving at their verdict as to guilt or innocence.
  • Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657, 662 (8th Cir.
  • 469 U.S. 1089 ("he fact finding necessary for sentencing is the responsibility
  • By its Motion in Limine,

  • 3 . NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 8-4-00 2

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    UNITED STATES
    AMERICAN AIRLINES
    DISTRICT
    COURT
    DEPOSITION
    PURSUANT
    COUNSEL
    YORK
    PLAINTIFF
    ANTITRUST DIVISION
    JUSTICE
    SUITE
    COSTS
    THANKSGIVING TOWER
    ELM STREET
    DALLAS
    TEXAS
    AMR EAGLE HOLDING
    EAGLE HOLDING CORPORATION
    TESTIFY
    MATTER
    HERETO
    JENNIFER CIHON
    WASHINGTON
    DFW-MCI
    DFW-ICT
    DFW-LGB
    DFW-COS
    DECISION FAUDNC
    
                        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.         )
     ______________________________)
    
                           NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO
                                           FED.R.CIV.P. 30(B0(6)
    
    
    TO:  CLERK OF THE COURT
    
           COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS
           Helene Jaffe
           Weil Gotshal & Manges L.L.P.
           767 Fifth Avenue
           New York, New York 10153
    
           PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) and 45 and LR
    
    30.1, plaintiff will take the deposition(s) upon oral examination, to be recorded by
    
    stenographic means and videotape, at the offices of the Antitrust Division of the
    
    Department of Justice, Thanksgiving Tower, 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4950, Dallas, Texas
    
    75201, of American Airlines, Inc. and AMR Eagle Holding Corporation (collectively
    
    
    
    "American").  American is requested to designate the person or persons most
    
    knowledgeable and prepared to testify on behalf of American concerning the subject
    
    matter described on Attachment A hereto.  The deposition(s) will commence at 9:00 a.m.
    
    on August 21, 2000.  If necessary, each deposition will be adjourned until completed.
    
    Dated: August 4, 2000.
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and)
  • New York, New York 10153
  • PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Fed.
  • Department of Justice, Thanksgiving Tower, 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4950, Dallas, Texas
  • 75201, of American Airlines, Inc. and AMR Eagle Holding Corporation (collectively
  • knowledgeable and prepared to testify on behalf of American concerning the subject
  • matter described on Attachment A hereto.
  • each deposition will be adjourned until completed.
  • COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES
  • By: Jennifer Cihon
  • Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
  • Washington, D.C. 20530
  • For American Airlines Inc.'s operations in DFW-MCI, DFW-ICT, DFW-LGB and
  • DFW-COS during the period January 1995 through May 1998,
  • understated or overstated by the costs reflected in American's Decision FAUDNC
  •    |