Anthony Teong-Chan Gaw as Transferee of Radcliffe Investment LTD. - Page 172

                                                 - 70 -                                                    
            Court asked petitioner at the call of these cases from the calen-                              
            dar and before it had scheduled the time and date of the trial                                 
            herein to name the witnesses he intended to call at trial, he did                              
            not include Mme. Koo among those witnesses and did not explain                                 
            that omission.  Nor did petitioner ask the Court at that time                                  
            toconsider Mme. Koo's availability to testify in scheduling the                                
            trial, object to the trial date set by the Court on the grounds                                
            that Mme. Koo was not available at that time, or offer an expla-                               
            nation at trial for her absence.  Petitioner's trial memorandum                                
            that was submitted approximately two weeks before the call of                                  
            these cases from the calendar simply stated that Mme. Koo's abil-                              
            ity to testify was "uncertain" due to her age and residence in                                 
            Hong Kong, not that those circumstances prevented her from testi-                              

            46(...continued)                                                                               
            week.  The Court also indicated to the parties at the call of                                  
            these cases from the calendar and before scheduling the trial                                  
            that it might not be able to accommodate their scheduling prefer-                              
            ences.  When the Court asked the parties at the call of these                                  
            cases from the calendar to estimate trial time and name the wit-                               
            nesses they intended to call at trial, petitioner's counsel did                                
            not name Mme. Koo as one of the witnesses he would call at trial                               
            and did not ask the Court to schedule the trial to take place at                               
            a time when she would be available.  The only ground on which                                  
            petitioner's counsel sought at that time to delay the commence-                                
            ment of the trial was petitioner's absence from the calendar call                              
            and his expected arrival in San Francisco the following night.                                 
            The Court scheduled trial to begin on the first day of its trial                               
            session in San Francisco because a witness named Mr. Catterton,                                
            who was subpoenaed by petitioner only three business days prior                                
            to the call of these cases from the calendar, was available to                                 
            testify only on that day and would not have been available again                               
            until after the Court ended its trial session in San Francisco.                                







Page:  Previous  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011