Proctor & Gamble case

Proctor & Gamble v. Randy L. Haugen, et al

1:95-cv-94

Judge Ted Stewart

United States District Court for the District of Utah, Northern Division

As an update to this post, the plaintiffs have filed a response.

In short, the plaintiffs state that the defendants’ “Motion for Immediate Inquiry into Possible Jury Misconduct” should be denied and the court should strike the jurors’ affidavits since: “(1) they are rife with impermissible averments revealing the jury’s deliberations and mental processes, and thus are wholly incompetent under the plain language of [Federal] Rule [of Evidence] 606(b); (2) they contradict one another and do not supply any admissible evidence establishing either a quotient verdict or reliance on extraneous prejudicial information; and (3) they are not notarized and do not qualify as declarations under federal law because they were not signed under penalty of perjury.”

Click on the following link for the the complete Memorandum in Opposition.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Civil, Judge Ted Stewart

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: