Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Citation | 775 F. Supp. 1397 |
Decision Date | 04 October 1991 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 90-F-1203. |
Parties | Stephanie L. STAHL, Plaintiff, v. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Kathryn E. Miller, Miller & Leher, P.C., Robert J. Truhlar, Truhlar and Truhlar, Littleton, Colo., for plaintiff.
Steven J. Merker, Catherine S. Martinez, Davis, Graham & Stubbs, Denver, Colo., for defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's objection to Plaintiff's use of leading questions on direct examination of witness Teresa Cox during trial. This case involves breach of contract claims and Title VII cause of action arising out of Stephanie Stahl's employment as a Sales Representative for Defendant Sun Microsystems. Trial began on June 10, 1991. On June 18, 1991, the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $500,000.00 on the breach of contract claims. The Court held for the Defendant on the Title VII claim on June 27, 1991. Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., No. 90-1203, slip op. (D.Colo. June 27, 1991). Both parties have filed notices of appeal.
During the course of the trial, Plaintiff called Teresa Cox as an adverse witness and requested leave to propound leading questions to Ms. Cox. Ms. Cox is a former employee of Sun Microsystems. She served as a district administrative secretary under Darrell Waters, Ms. Stahl's District Manager, between 1988 and 1990. Defendant objected to the use of leading questions on direct examination principally on the grounds that Ms. Cox is no longer affiliated with Sun. The court overruled the objection and allowed counsel to propound leading questions on both direct and cross-examination. We now expand on that ruling.
Rule 611(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits leading questions on direct examination when a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party. Fed. R.Evid. 611(c). Although Ms. Cox is no longer employed by Sun, she is clearly identified with Defendant, both through her previous employment and her ongoing relationship with Mr. Waters, a key witness who attended the trial on behalf of Sun. Haney v. Mizell Memorial Hosp., 744 F.2d 1467, 1477-78 (11th Cir.1984); N.L.R.B. v. Southwestern Colorado Contractors Ass'n, 379 F.2d 360, 364-65 (10th Cir.1967); accord Bruce Hughes, Inc. v. Ingels & Assocs., Inc., 653 P.2d 88, 90 (Colo.App. 1982). Use of leading questions on direct examination of Ms. Cox is therefore appropriate.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Munday v. Waste Management of North America, Inc.
... ... Frazier v. Colonial Williamsburg Found., 574 F.Supp. 318, 321 (E.D.Va.1983); Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 1394, 1397 (D.Colo. 1991), aff'd, 19 F.3d 533 (10th Cir.1994); see also California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v ... ...
-
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Goldstone
...Court's determination that Starrett could be considered a witness identified with an adverse party. In Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 1397 (D. Colo. 1991)(Finesilver, J.), the plaintiff in an employment dispute called one of the defendant corporation's former employees as a w......
-
Fehr v. Sus-Q Cyber Charter Sch.
...as her involvement in the particular transactions or occurrences that gave rise to the litigation. Compare Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 1397, 1398 (D. Colo. 1991) (finding leading questions appropriate because "[a]lthough [witness] is no longer employed by [Defendant], she ......
-
John Doe v. Russell Cnty. Sch. Bd.
...the former employee's position and involvement, if any, in the events giving rise to the litigation. Compare Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 1397, 1398 (D. Colo. 1991) (finding formeremployee of defendant to be "identified with an adverse party" because of her former employmen......
-
Leading Questions
...identified with defendant (and was also carrying on an affair with a key witness for the defendant). Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc. , 775 F. Supp. 1397 (D. Colo. 1991). CONNECTICUT: In a prosecution for promoting a minor in an obscene performance, the prosecutor may ask leading questions o......
-
Leading Questions
...identified with defendant (and was also carrying on an affair with a key witness for the defendant). Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc. , 775 F. Supp. 1397 (D. Colo. 1991). CONNECTICUT: In a prosecution for promoting a minor in an obscene performance, the prosecutor may ask leading questions o......
-
Leading Questions
...identified with defendant (and was also carrying on an affair with a key witness for the defendant). Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc. , 775 F. Supp. 1397 (D. Colo. 1991). CONNECTICUT: In a prosecution for promoting a minor in an obscene performance, the prosecutor may ask leading questions o......
-
Leading questions
...identified with defendant (and was also carrying on an affair with a key witness for the defendant). Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc. , 775 F. Supp. 1397 (D. Colo. 1991). CONNECTICUT: In a prosecution for promoting a minor in an obscene performance, the prosecutor may ask leading questions o......