Michael W. Ayotte v. Margaret Janet Bruno
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
Background and Key Facts 3. The parties are familiar with Ms. Bruno’s underlying employment dispute with her former employer and her interactions with Mr. Ayotte to resolve that fight. The Court takes the relevant — and relatively undisputed — facts from the parties’ direct testimony declarations (Docket # 40, 43), the live cross-examination and additional in- court questioning of Mr. Ayotte and Ms. Bruno,! and the key documents. The parties stipulated to the admission of all exhibits. The ones mentioned in their testimony (and to which the Court attributes significance) are the parties’ e-mails and texts (Exhibits 9, 11.
The declarations of Mrs. Ayotte (confirming the gist of a call between her husband and Ms. Bruno) and Mr. Aguilar (another employment lawyer involved in an early stage of the matter) didn’t add much to the Court’s understanding of the dispute. The Court and the parties jointly agreed that no cross-examination was needed of those witnesses. CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of