Opinion ID: 2319975
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Proof Hearing

Text: On the same date, the trial judge conducted a proof hearing and set damages in the amount of $520,000, plus $122,425 in counsel fees, [2] against Githens, who had defaulted. [3] The proof hearing spanned several days during which the court heard live testimony from plaintiff and her damages expert, along with excerpts from Githens' November 29, 2005, deposition. Plaintiff's testimony at the proof hearing was a more detailed version of what was in the summary judgment record. Also, some of the excerpts from Githens' deposition that were submitted were different from those that were provided at the summary judgment phase. On August 6, 2007, the trial judge wrote a letter to all parties, including the dismissed defendants, advising them that he felt it necessary to reconsider his original order granting summary judgment, as a result of what he had heard at the proof hearing. The judge concluded that: The dynamics of this case appear[] to be far more complicated than the various briefs, certification and perhaps my prior decisions may demonstrate. Thus, in the interest of justice, a second argument will be very important. Fairness dictates that all of the parties have an opportunity to review the proof hearing proceeding and to make any additional submissions necessary. The judge notified all parties, including the dismissed defendants, about his concerns and scheduled a hearing on the issue. The parties were provided with audiotapes of the proof hearing, the exhibits, and were afforded two months to prepare for the hearing.