Case 1:09-cv-00386-SEB-JMS Document 94 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DR. BARRY EPPLEY, M.D., DMD, Plaintiff, vs. LUCILLE IACOVELLI, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-cv-386- SEB-JMS The Honorable Sarah Evans Barker, Judge Entry for July 1, 2009 On this date, Plaintiff appeared in person, together with his counsel, for a hearing on all pending motions. Court Reporter, Laura Howie-Walters, transcribed the proceedings. Defendant did not appear in person or by counsel. ! ! The hearing was scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m., but neither Defendant, nor any attorney appearing on her behalf, was present in the courtroom at that time. The commencement of the hearing was briefly delayed until 2:15 p.m. At that time, Defendant still had not arrived in the courtroom, and the Court made inquiry of Plaintiff’s counsel and the Courtroom Deputy as to whether they had heard anything about Defendant’s intent to appear. They responded that they had not. The hearing was convened and, after a brief opening statement to the Court, Plaintiff’s counsel called as his first witness, Plaintiff, Dr. Barry Eppley. During Dr. Eppley’s testimony, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5 was admitted into evidence. Plaintiff’s counsel called as his second witness, Tabitha Lucas. During her testimony, Plaintiff’s Exhibits 6 (large folder with compilation of written material posted on the internet after this litigation was initiated)1, 7 (summary of sites ! ! Plaintiff retained possession of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 to make a photocopy of it and will return it to the Court/Clerk on a later date. 1 1 Case 1:09-cv-00386-SEB-JMS Document 94 Filed 07/01/2009 Page 2 of 2 posted/created since March, 2009), 8 (summary of sites containing defamatory information as of July 1, 2009) and 9 (summary of sites with defamatory content including removals) were admitted into evidence. ! ! ! Plaintiff’s counsel called as his third witness, John Hicks, who qualified and testified as an expert. Plaintiff’s counsel presented oral argument on Plaintiff’s motion for contempt sanctions and Plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions. Plaintiff’s counsel next responded to Defendant’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The Court ruled that Plaintiff’s Rule 11 motion was unfounded and, accordingly, that motion [Docket No. 72] was DENIED for the reasons more fully explicated on the record. The Court took all other matters under advisement and the proceedings were adjourned. A written order shall follow. ! Copies to: Gary P. Price LEWIS & KAPPES email@example.com Todd Arthur Richardson LEWIS & KAPPES firstname.lastname@example.org Joseph Peter Rompala LEWIS & KAPPES email@example.com LUCILLE IACOVELLI 3 Deer Hollow Road Forestdale, MA 02644 2
"Barry L. Eppley, MD - lawsuit against ex-patient"