We have the latest update provided by PWInsider involving the Pre-Trial Conference between Jeff Jarrett and Anthem Media. The motion included the following details:
* Jarrett’s team has requested that Anthem be prevented from offering evidence or other information related to Jarrett’s conduct “while intoxicated resulting from his alcoholism.” They have said that they don’t want to prevent mentions of Jarrett’s suspension or firing in general or “general, non-specific reference” to Jarrett’s alcoholism, but that anything beyond that is “unnecessary and unwarranted” and that his alleged conduct is “not relevant” and “highly prejudicial.”
* Anthem wants to exclude an expert report from Glen Purdue, a member of Kraft Analytics which looks at valuation, forensic and transaction advisory services in Nashville. The reasons for this aren’t yet known because the filing is sealed.
* Anthem also wants to exclude evidence of Anthem’s “Corporate Structure and Financial Condition,” pointing out that Anthem Sports was dismissed as a defendant. The argument is that while Anthem Sports is Anthem Wrestling’s parent entity, the two are separate business entities that don’t share assets and that “Any evidence of Anthem Sports’ financials could prejudice the jury against Anthem Wrestling by leading them to believe that Anthem Wrestling has assets that it does not have and would not be able to use to pay any potential award to Plaintiffs.”
* Anthem is asking the court to “Exclude Spreadsheets Not Created in the Normal Course of Business,” referencing the fact that some Ed Nordholm-created spreadsheets were found during discovery and that the data contained within was not kept in the course of Anthem’s ordinary business and likely provided by Jarrett “without documentary evidence to support the data” and thus “are hearsay.”
* Anthem has asked that hearsay evidence be excluded, noting, Jarrett made a deposition about fans asking him if he left GFW due to his Impact departure, which falls under hearsay.
* Finally, Anthem has asked the court to exclude “any Testimony of an Oral Agreement by Plaintiffs’ that is Inconsistent with Their Discovery Responses.”
