The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge John L. Kane
This matter is before me on Defendants' renewed motion that the jury be directed to consult DX 1290 in response to their February 1, 2006, request for "the maps that go with P240 - Jefferson County Enterprise Zone." In response to that February 1 request, both parties agreed that none of the maps referenced in P240, which is an excerpt of a Jefferson County document, were admitted into evidence.
Defendants nonetheless asked that the jury be directed to DX 1290, a graphic prepared by Defendants that is admitted into evidence, but indisputably is not part of the Jefferson County document that is P240. Plaintiffs objected and, after reviewing DX 1290, I concurred, finding that it was not responsive to the jury's request. In making this determination, I reviewed the testimony of Mr. Hunsperger and Mr. Cassidy that Defendants cite as verifying that DX 1290 is a map that "goes with P240," and found this testimony ambiguous at best. I further noted that DX 1290 depicts contours, shaded areas and text without an explanatory legend or any indication that these graphics merely duplicate information provided in the missing maps referenced in P240. Accordingly, I did not direct the jury to DX 1290 in response to its request for the P240 maps. The jury's subsequent request for ten copies of P240, which Defendants cite in their renewed request regarding DX 1290, provides no reason for me to reconsider this decision.
Defendants' request also suggests that DX 1290 is not currently available to the jury. This is incorrect, as DX 1290 is included in the set of admitted exhibits provided to the jury for use during its deliberations and in the index to these exhibits.
Accordingly, Defendants' renewed request that I direct the jury to DX 1290, as stated in Defendants' Statement Regarding P-240 and DX-1290, filed February 6, 2006, is denied.
Dated this 7th day of February, 2006.
John L. Kane, Senior District Judge United States District Court
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...