Constand v. Cosby

Full title: ANDREA CONSTAND, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR. Defendant

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jun 24, 2005

Civil Action No. 05-1099 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 24, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-1099.

June 24, 2005

ORDER

EDUARDO ROBRENO, District Judge

AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 2005, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court's Memorandum dated June 2, 2005 in the above-captioned case is AMENDED so that the following sentence on page 12 is DELETED:

The Rule, in its original incarnation, including what is now Comment 5, which at the time was section (b) of the Rule, largely tracks the language of Nevada's rule of professional conduct that the Supreme Court found to be constitutionally permissible in Gentile.

INSERTED in lieu thereof shall be the following language:

Rule 3.6 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, in its original incarnation, including what is now Comment 5, which at the time was section (b) of the Rule, largely tracks the language of Nevada Supreme Court Rule 177 which was at issue in Gentile. As discussed above, in Gentile the Supreme Court found the "substantial likelihood" test embodied in Rule 177, and now at the heart of Pennsylvania Rule 3.6, to be constitutionally permissible.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.