-332-
the interests of justice will best be served by admitting Mr.
Jouannet’s response.227
In light of the foregoing,
An appropriate order will
be issued granting respondent’s
motion in limine to exclude the
expert report and testimony of Todd
Crawford, denying petitioner’s
motion in limine to exclude the
expert report and testimony of
Louise Nemschoff, and granting
petitioner’s motion in limine to
exclude the expert report and
testimony of Alan C. Shapiro, at
docket No. 6163-03 a decision will
be entered for respondent and at
docket No. 6164-03 an appropriate
order of dismissal will be entered.
227 Even if Mr. Jouannet’s response were admitted into
evidence, it would not change our decisions in these cases. For
the reasons discussed above, we would attach little weight to Mr.
Jouannet’s response, which is filled with equivocations that beg
the question posed to him. We are not persuaded that Mr.
Jouannet was adverse to petitioner’s interests. Moreover, the
response itself is contradicted by the salient testimony of Mr.
Geary, who acted as CDR’s counsel in the transaction with the
Ackerman group.
Page: Previous 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 Last modified: May 25, 2011