732 F.Supp. 7, 8-9 (D.D.C.1990). B. Waiver Plaintiff first contends that the jury should not have been permitted to consider the statute of limitations defense because defendant waived it. See Pl.’s Mem. at 1-5; Pl.’s Reply at 5-8. Plaintiff contends that, although defendant raised the defense in its answer, the defense was waived because defendant failed to assert the defense during discovery or in the summary judgment phase of litigation. This Circuit has held, however, that the statute of limitations defense is “sufficiently raised for purposes of Rule 8 by its bare assertion” in an answer. Daingerfield Island Protective Soc’y v. Babbitt, 40 F.3d 442, 445 (D.C.Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp., 942 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The assertion of the defense in the answer
holding that the defendants waived their affirmative defense of unenforceability by failing to raise the defense in response to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment which the trial court granted holding that a defendant who fails to raise statute of limitations defense in a pretrial motion to dismiss or by requesting a jury instruction on limitations if there is some evidence that the prosecution is limitationsbarred waives that defense holding that defendant does not waive an affirmative defense if defendant raises it at a pragmatically sufficient time such as summary judgment and the defendants failure raise the affirmative defense in its answer did not cause the plaintiff prejudice holding that the government did not waive an affirmative defense not pleaded in the answer because it raised the defense at a pragmatically sufficient time by listing the defense in the joint pretrial order holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second