HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011410

id.

ne)

life)

107 H3vlgiu2

Oh, Ms. Menninger reminds me, your Honor -- and I

think the Court and I are on the same page on this as well --

the tax argument made by Mr. Cassell. Indeed, Ms. Maxwell and

the plaintiff are not on the same footing in this case with regard to who put their reputation at issue, who is claiming emotional distress damages, and plaintiffs are in a much different position than defendants when it comes to cross-examinations about these issues, particularly in defamation cases, because as Ms. Menninger pointed out earlier,

under Rule 405, everything that impacts the plaintiff's

reputation in the community, including the failure to follow laws, is the subject of cross-examination. So the argument that what is good for the goose is good for the gander ina defamation case simply doesn't apply when you're talking about damage issues and reputational issues.

Thank you, your Honor.

MR. CASSELL: Could I just have 15 seconds, your Honor?

THE COURT: No.

MR. CASSELL: All right. Thanks.

COURT : Next.

MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, we could next take up the

issue relating to the police reports which I have as defendant's motion in limine to exclude police reports and

other inadmissible hearsay at 677, response at 747, and then

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011410