Order Regarding 'fabricated Evidence' In Roomy Khan Lawsuit
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Order Regarding 'fabricated Evidence' In Roomy Khan Lawsuit as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 335
- Pages: 2
Case4:08-cv-01427-CW Document163
Filed08/28/09 Page1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California
10
No. C 08-1427 CW VILMA SERRALTA,
11
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15
SAKHAWAT KHAN; ROOMY KHAN; and DOES ONE through TEN inclusive, Defendants. /
16 17
Plaintiffs have moved for default judgment as a sanction for
18
what appears to be the fabrication of a significant piece of
19
documentary evidence by Defendants, or, at best, by their employee.
20
The Court, having considered oral argument and all of the papers
21
submitted, denies the motion for entry of default judgment.
22
However, the Court will give the jury a strongly worded instruction
23
about the inference of culpability that must be drawn from
24
fabrication of evidence, which Plaintiffs may draft.
25
may move for any attorneys’ fees incurred in investigating and
26
moving for relief regarding this document.
27
not allow Defendants to submit any evidence rebutting Plaintiffs’
28
evidence about the fabrication of this document, unless the Court
Plaintiffs
Further, the Court will
Case4:08-cv-01427-CW Document163
Filed08/28/09 Page2 of 2
1
has first screened any such proposed evidence.
2
first day of trial, at 8:30 a.m., while the jury is gathering,
3
Defendants must present at an evidentiary hearing any evidence they
4
propose to offer to rebut Plaintiffs’ evidence.
5
hear it and determine whether to allow Defendants to present it to
6
the jury during trial.
7
proffered for screening at that time will be allowed.
8
Accordingly, on the
The Court will
No such rebuttal evidence that is not
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California
10
Dated:
8/28/09 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
Filed08/28/09 Page1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California
10
No. C 08-1427 CW VILMA SERRALTA,
11
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15
SAKHAWAT KHAN; ROOMY KHAN; and DOES ONE through TEN inclusive, Defendants. /
16 17
Plaintiffs have moved for default judgment as a sanction for
18
what appears to be the fabrication of a significant piece of
19
documentary evidence by Defendants, or, at best, by their employee.
20
The Court, having considered oral argument and all of the papers
21
submitted, denies the motion for entry of default judgment.
22
However, the Court will give the jury a strongly worded instruction
23
about the inference of culpability that must be drawn from
24
fabrication of evidence, which Plaintiffs may draft.
25
may move for any attorneys’ fees incurred in investigating and
26
moving for relief regarding this document.
27
not allow Defendants to submit any evidence rebutting Plaintiffs’
28
evidence about the fabrication of this document, unless the Court
Plaintiffs
Further, the Court will
Case4:08-cv-01427-CW Document163
Filed08/28/09 Page2 of 2
1
has first screened any such proposed evidence.
2
first day of trial, at 8:30 a.m., while the jury is gathering,
3
Defendants must present at an evidentiary hearing any evidence they
4
propose to offer to rebut Plaintiffs’ evidence.
5
hear it and determine whether to allow Defendants to present it to
6
the jury during trial.
7
proffered for screening at that time will be allowed.
8
Accordingly, on the
The Court will
No such rebuttal evidence that is not
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California
10
Dated:
8/28/09 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
Related Documents
Civil Lawsuit Against Roomy And Sakhawat Khan
June 2020 2
Information On Roomy Khan
June 2020 4
Lawsuit
May 2020 20
Lawsuit
June 2020 26
Lawsuit
December 2019 35More Documents from ""
Robert Miller's Cooperation Agreement
June 2020 1
Republican Memo On Merrill Hearing
June 2020 1
Banker Vs. Ballers - Dick Bove's Analysis
June 2020 1
