See Jaffe v. Bank of Am., N.A., 395 Fed. App’x 583, 588–89 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Although Ross left Bank of America four years before the trial commenced, he was a[n] . . . employee when the alleged misrepresentations may have occurred, and Bank of America's counsel represented him personally throughout the litigation. Thus, Ross was in fact a witness ‘identified with’ [the defendant].”) (error did not mandate reversal); Chonich v. Wayne Cnty. Cmty. Coll., 874 F.2d 359, 368 (6th Cir. 1989) (witnesses who were defendant’s “former president and personnel director” were properly “identified with an adverse party under F.R.E. 611(c)”) (upholding lower court); Wal-Stores, Inc. v. Qore, Inc., No. 1:06 Civ. 326, 2009 WL 305817, at *1 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 3, 2009) (“[A]s Bailey is a former employee of [defendant]. . . . [s]he is therefore a witness associated with an adverse party and subject to leading questions.”); Talbot v. Vill. of Sauk, No. 97 Civ. 2281, 1999 WL 286089, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 27, 1999) (Shadur, J.) (holding that “present and former employees of defendant” are “identified with an adverse party”); Stahl v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 1397, 1398 (D. Colo. 1991) (“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 . . . a key witness who attended the trial on behalf of Sun”).
Share this article: