Opinion ID: 2156112
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pre-trial exclusion of evidence

Text: The trial court ruled that neither party would be permitted to raise a conversation which allegedly took place at the Tandoor restaurant a few days prior to Railan's purchase of the bank note, in which Railan, Katyal and his attorney, Mr. McCants, were present. Railan described the meeting in this way: [T]hree or four days before we purchased the note Mr. [McCants], Mr. Katyal were sitting in the restaurant having lunch with me. I was there with them, and then Mr. [McCants] said, Why don't you take his deal he's been offering you? I said, Mr. [McCants], I can't at this time. I have to talk to my lawyer. You are a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. I don't even know if it's legal. Both of them said, It's legal, you take this, $100,000 you can take this  take this deal.... They were forcing it down my throat, You Honor.... I never took or accepted this deal. [5] McCants, who was Katyal's trial attorney and is counsel on appeal, remarked that what [Railan] just said to you is absolutely incorrect. McCants contended that the discussion concerned the taxes Katyal owed to the District of Columbia on the Tandoor property. The trial court explained its decision to exclude testimony regarding that meeting: And the basis for this ruling is two fold. One, it honors a prior agreement reached between the parties. It prevents Mr [McCants] from being a witness at trial and albeit [sic] the need of his withdrawal, which  and this is the second and very important reason  would delay resolution of this case. The Railans filed a motion to reconsider the court's pre-trial order excluding McCant's testimony in which they argue that there was never any agreement with Mr. McCants not to raise the meeting where Mr. Railan's testimony would be that he was clearly equivocal and clearly undecided about whether to engage in any contract with Mr. Katyal and he was extremely concerned about arranging for Mr. Katyal to start paying real estate taxes on the property, which Mr. Katyal never did.