Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lativafter Liquidating Trust v. Clear Channel Communications

November 15, 2007

LATIVAFTER LIQUIDATING TRUST, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: H. Bruce Guyton United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Rules of this Court, and by the Order [Doc. 160] of the Honorable Thomas W. Phillips, United States District Judge, for disposition of defendant Clear Channel Communications, Inc.'s ("Clear Channel's") Motion in Limine. [Doc. 148] Since filing the motion, Clear Channel subsequently withdrew a portion of the instant motion [Doc. 161], thus the Court need address only the arguments contained in section II(B) of Clear Channels memorandum. [Doc. 149]

Clear Channel moves the Court to preclude the admission of plaintiff Eon Streams, Inc.'s ("Eon's")*fn1 exhibits numbered 1, 2, and 3 (collectively, the "Exhibits"). Clear Channel contends that the Exhibits are irrelevant, and thus are inadmissible. Specifically, Clear Channel contends that the Service Agreement at issue in this case contains an integration clause. Clear Channel further argues that the Exhibits relate to events that predate the Service Agreement, and are thus rendered irrelevant by the integration clause.

The Court notes that the Exhibits, themselves, have not been filed with the Court. The Court will not attempt to determine the relevance of the Exhibits without having the opportunity to examine them. Accordingly, Clear Channel's motion [Doc. 148] is hereby DENIED without prejudice. In so ruling, the Court in no way rules that the Exhibits are, or are not, admissible. Certainly, Eon will have to prove at trial the admissibility of any exhibits before they can be entered into evidence. Should Clear Channel feel that Eon has not sufficiently proven the relevance of the Exhibits when it seeks their admission, then Clear Channel has leave to renew its objection to their admission at that time.

IT IS SO ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.