- 192 -
of the parties' objections to the documents attached to the
parties' fourth and fifth stipulations of fact, and that having
Ms. Rinaldi testify would complete the record insofar as she
might have declined to testify at the initial evidentiary hearing
because of perceived intimidation. However, the Court rejected
Mr. Sticht's request to call Mr. Rogers to testify on the grounds
that: (1) Mr. Rogers' testimony was not related to the documents
attached to the parties' fourth and fifth stipulations of fact;
(2) there was no indication that Mr. Rogers had declined to
testify during the initial evidentiary hearing because of
perceived intimidation;86 and (3) Mr. Sticht's proffer of
Mr. Rogers' testimony revealed that the testimony, which
primarily concerned the First Savings acquisition, would amount
to an attempt to retry the Dixon test cases on the merits or
would concern a transaction that was not in issue in the trial of
the test cases.
B. Supplemental Evidentiary Hearing (August 18, 1997)
On July 24, 1997, Mr. Kersting filed a Motion for Protection
or to Quash asserting that the supplemental evidentiary hearing
and production of the documents identified in the subpoena that
Mr. Sticht had served on him in May 1996 (before the initial
evidentiary hearing) would amount to an attempt to retry the
86 On June 17, 1997, at the initial evidentiary hearing,
Mr. Sticht stated on the record that he was reconsidering whether
Mr. Rogers' testimony was necessary in light of other evidence
already in the record.
Page: Previous 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011