Priceless: The Case That Brought Down The Visa/MasterCard Bank Cartel - Plot & Excerpts
Twenty-eight were motions inlimine asking Judge Gleeson to prevent us from using most of the evidence we wanted to present at trial. They also filed three more Daubert motions seeking to exclude most of our expert testimony. Those who have read this far know that both the motions inlimine and the Daubert motions were a second and, in some instances, a third attempt to prevent us from putting our case before a jury. Most of these motions were particularly silly because they were seeking to exclude the same evidence that Judge Gleeson had relied upon only two weeks earlier in denying all of Visa/MasterCard’s summary judgment requests and granting most of ours. By virtue of their sheer number, these motions also smelled of desperation. On the same day, April 14, 2003, we filed six motions of our own. This number shrank to five when the defendants conceded the relief requested in one of ours. Among the most desperate defense motions, and the most revealing to us because they spotlighted precisely what the defendants feared most (and had probably suffered from most, at their recent mock trials), were these: The defendants made a motion to exclude all evidence about consumer confusion over whether a Visa/MasterCard card was debit or credit.
What do You think about Priceless: The Case That Brought Down The Visa/MasterCard Bank Cartel?
