Regular readers may have seen extensive coverage here about a case in Tulsa, OK, where a shopper went to the assistance of a Target security guard who had called out for help and the customer was badly injured by the suspect who had a knife. A month ago the case was thrown out by the judge after the case had been presented but before Target put in their reply.
As I opined, it is now back for retrial, due to the Federal judge not having taken into consideration relevant Oklahoma statutes dealing with what is admissable. The Target AP Directives 2006 were part of this trial as well as the more current version of the security manual. Target continues to whine to the judge about keeping them 'confidential' and not part of the published court record - like they are some sort of secret - HA, that cat got out of the bag 2 years ago! Gosh, wonder who sent them a copy of the Directives????
The plaintiff is also asking for it to be heard by another judge:
Filed & Entered:
07/15/2008
Minute Order Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Granting Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial ; reopening case; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Scheduling Conference set for 8/28/2008 at 10:30 AM before Judge James H Payne); granting [112] Motion for New Trial (pll, Dpty Clk)
