Free Motion to Enjoin - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01254-GMS

Document 227

Filed 04/30/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

HARRY SMITH, JR. and ROSLYN WOODARD SMITH, Individually and as Administrators of The ESTATE OF HARRY SMITH, III, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN CIRITELLA, THOMAS DEMPSEY, and MATTHEW KURTEN, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION ________________________________________________________________________ Come now the Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, and move this honorable Court for an order prohibiting Defendants and their attorneys from contacting potential witnesses, the employers of potential witnesses, jurors, or doing any other thing that might impede or otherwise affect the Court's investigation of why the jury verdict was published by a local newspaper almost an hour before it was delivered in open court. The basis for this motion is that Defendants' attorney John Parkins sent a letter to Ms. Desiree Young, a potential witness, regarding a subpoena he intends to serve upon her employer to check the computer and printer she uses at her workplace. [Please see Exhibit 1 attached hereto.] Ms. Young resides in Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs do not know the intentions or motivations of attorney Parkins. However, the effect of his letter is to intimidate Ms. Young, a potential witness. CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-1254-GMS

1

Case 1:04-cv-01254-GMS

Document 227

Filed 04/30/2007

Page 2 of 3

As suggested in United States v. Resko, 3 F.3d 684, 688 (3d Cir. 1993), the responsibility for investigating allegations of irregularities in the jury deliberation process lie squarely with the Court. The investigation requested by Plaintiffs should be

conducted by the Court, and in a manner the Court deems appropriate, including contacting potential witnesses (whether in or out of the state) and gaining access to any out-of-state non-party's computer hard drives. The Court is responsible for making certain that the integrity of the jury deliberation process is protected. The Court also has the power to determine how the investigation will be conducted. None of the parties to the litigation should do anything that usurps or adversely affects the Court's authority to determine how it will conduct its investigation. Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this honorable Court issue an order enjoining Defendants and their counsel from contacting potential witnesses, the employers of the potential witnesses, jurors, and doing any other thing that might impede or in any way affect the Court's investigation. Respectfully submitted this 30th day of April 2007.

/s/ Anne T. Sulton Anne T. Sulton Admitted: Pro Hac Vice Sulton Law Offices Post Office Box 2763 Olympia, WA 98507 Telephone: (609) 468-6029 E-Mail: [email protected]

2

Case 1:04-cv-01254-GMS

Document 227

Filed 04/30/2007

Page 3 of 3

LOCAL COUNSEL: Kester I.H. Crosse Delaware State Bar I.D. #638 1214 King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 658-3488 E-Mail: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 30, 2007, I electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing(s) to the following:

Attorney John Parkins E-mail [email protected]

/s/ Anne T. Sulton Anne T. Sulton

3