First, defendant Ground Round contends that the physicians are "identified with" plaintiff, particularly her family physician, Dr. John Dulcey, since he has had an ongoing relationship with her. As noted above, the "identified with" clause of Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c) has been generally interpreted to mean agents, friends, relatives or employees. Defendant has cited nothing to show that a treating doctor should be included in that class of witnesses .

Case 1:10-cv-03229-KBF Document 277 Filed 05/21/13 Page 17 of 19 14 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant the Commission’s motion in limine and permit the Commission to employ leading questions in its direct examination of certain witnesses. Dated: May 21, 2013 Respectfully submitted, Washington, D.C. /s/ Bridget Fitzpatrick Matthew T. Martens Richard E. Simpson Christian D. H. Schultz Bridget Fitzpatrick Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20549 (202) 551-4481 (Martens) (202) 772-9292 (fax) martensm@sec.gov Case 1:10-cv-03229-KBF Document 277 Filed 05/21/13 Page 18 of 19 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 21, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing SEC’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION IN LIMINE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 611 using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following email address: Pamelachepiga@allenovery.com Pamela Rogers Chepiga Allen & Overy LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 seancoffey78@gmail.com John Patrick Coffey Law Office of John P. Coffey 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 2d Floor New York, NewYork 10019 Attorneys for defendant Fabrice Tourre /s/ Bridget Fitzpatrick Bridget Fitzpatrick Case 1:10-cv-03229-KBF Document 277 Filed 05/21/13 Page 19 of 19

The jury should not be exposed to such biased evidence and the Court is under no obligation to permit it. Fed. R. Evid. 611. II.

Case 2:03-cv-02216-BBD-gbc Document 433 Filed 09/08/08 Page 2 of 11 - 2 - Chonich v. Wayne County Cmty. College, 874 F.2d 359, 368 (6th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court, which allowed the defendant college’s current and former employees to be examined with leading questions “as witnesses identified with an adverse party under F.R.E. 611(c)”); Vanemmerik v. Ground Round, No. 97-5923, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 11765, at *6 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 1998) (“[T]he identified with clause of Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c) has been generally interpreted to mean agents, friends, relatives or employees.”).

This discretion includes permitting counsel to “go beyond the subject matter of direct examination while cross-examining [that] witness.” Sampley v. Wright, No. 95-3549, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28862, at *6-7 (7th Cir. Oct. 8, 1996). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a) and 611(b), and in light of Continental’s refusal to produce a corporate representative witness for Schnitzer’s case-in-chief or otherwise agree to trial depositions, Schnitzer should be given leave to either: (1) not close its case until it can examine these witnesses, or (2) to reopen its case at the time Continental brings these witnesses to trial.

C. Case 2:08-cv-05169-WJM-MF Document 176 Filed 10/15/15 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 10979 6 granted, the evidence, if otherwise relevant and non-objectionable,7 will still be heard by the jury. And of course, one of the primary considerations under Fed. R. Evid. 611 for calling a witness only once and allowing a party to cross-examine a witness without being limited to the matter covered on direct examination – the witness’s convenience – does not apply to videotape depositions. See, e.g., Lyman v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 719, 727–28 (E.D. Wis. 2008).

(“To the extent that Papst objects to the admission of what are strictly speaking demonstrative exhibits under Rule 611 because they would be unfairly prejudicial if considered admitted in evidence and as substantive evidence in a jury trial, both parties are reminded that this is no longer a jury trial but a bench trial. . . . To the extent that the summary exhibits are accurate representations of the data contained within the [trial evidence], the Court will consider them under Rule 611 of the Federal Rules of Evidence regardless of whether they ultimately are formally admitted in evidence”).

Further, Major Hughes, although not a defendant, is a comparator, and is currently Dixon’s current direct commander. In light of the pressures being brought to bear on Dixon by defendants and their tactics in this case, coupled with the pressures being brought to bear on him by his direct commanders in the chain of command all of whom are defendants or key defense players in this lawsuit, leading questions are appropriate under Fed.R.Evid. 611(c). D. Conclusion.

In particular, if Songkick elicits testimony from Mr. Yurkerwich about his credentials at trial, Defendants should have a fair opportunity to test those credentials by asking permissible questions about the proceedings in another federal court. See Fed. R. Evid. 611(b) (“Cross examination should not go beyond the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the witness’s credibility.”) (emphasis added); see also Bey, 2014 WL 334481 at *32 (“The courts have traditionally given both parties wide latitude in the cross-examination of experts in order to test their credibility.

For these reasons, they are unique in their ability to influence the jury and prejudice the Defendants.                                                              1 Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a) provides that “The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.” Case 1:08-cr-00360-RCL Document 442 Filed 05/16/14 Page 2 of 5 The distinctions between contractors and uniformed military personnel in combat zones have been highly politicized.