OTEY v. CITY OF FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, 13-CV-736-SMY-PMF. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20151005c87
Visitors: 24
Filed: Oct. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STACI M. YANDLE , District Judge . Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions in Limine (Doc. 48) and Defendant's Motions in Limine (Doc. 47). The Court considered the motions during the final pre-trial conference, a transcript of which can be found in the record. The Court ruled on the motions as follows: Plaintiff's Motions in Limine • Motion in limine No. 1 — disposition of Otey's sexual harassment claim. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent th
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STACI M. YANDLE , District Judge . Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions in Limine (Doc. 48) and Defendant's Motions in Limine (Doc. 47). The Court considered the motions during the final pre-trial conference, a transcript of which can be found in the record. The Court ruled on the motions as follows: Plaintiff's Motions in Limine • Motion in limine No. 1 — disposition of Otey's sexual harassment claim. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent tha..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STACI M. YANDLE, District Judge.
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's Motions in Limine (Doc. 48) and Defendant's Motions in Limine (Doc. 47). The Court considered the motions during the final pre-trial conference, a transcript of which can be found in the record. The Court ruled on the motions as follows:
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine
• Motion in limine No. 1 — disposition of Otey's sexual harassment claim. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that it refers to the disclosure that Plaintiff filed a sexual harassment lawsuit. However, the fact that Plaintiff made an internal sexual harassment complaint is relevant.
• Motion in limine No. 2 — the profession of Otey's spouse and documents she prepared. The Motion is GRANTED.
• Motion in limine No. 3 — evidence of Otey's credibility. The Motion is DENIED.
• Motion in limine No. 4 — evidence of statements or opinions of Defendant's prior counsel. The Motion is GRANTED.
• Motion in limine No. 5 — Sergeant Hoguet's reports and memoranda concerning Plaintiff. The Motion is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT and is subject to an offer of proof prior to Defendant referring to or eliciting any testimony regarding the reports and/or memoranda.
• Motion in limine No. 6 — Sergeant Hoguet's written evaluations of other employees. The Motion is DENIED.
Defendant's Motion in Limine
• Motion in limine No. 1 — all evidence or testimony regarding settlement negotiations or the desire to settle should be barred. The Motion is unopposed and is, therefore, GRANTED.
• Motion in limine No. 2 — evidence or argument that defendant has insurance to pay for a judgment should be barred. The Motion is unopposed and is, therefore, GRANTED.
• Motion in limine No. 3 — the Affidavit of Kenneth Coates is Only Admissible for Impeachment. The Motion is GRANTED.
• Motion in limine No. 4 — documents or conversations with non-parties about why Otey was not offered a job after leaving employment with Fairview Heights is inadmissible hearsay. The Motion is GRANTED.
• Motion in limine No. 5 — letters of recommendation that Otey received from prior employers should be barred under Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 404(a) and 802. The Motion is unopposed and is, therefore, GRANTED.
• Motion in limine No. 6 — the EEOC determination and any mention of the determination should be barred. The Court takes this Motion UNDER ADVISEMENT.
• Motion in limine No. 7 — evidence of any prior lawsuits, charges of discrimination, or internal complaints of sexual harassment against Fairview Heights or individual witnesses. The Motion is unopposed and is, therefore, GRANTED.
• Motion in limine No. 8 — evidence of back pay or front pay should be barred. The Court takes this Motion UNDER ADVISEMENT.
• Motion in limine No. 9 — evidence of Otey's job performance at other employers should be barred under Fed. R. Evid. 403 and 404(a) and 802. The Motion is GRANTED.
• Motion in limine No. 10 — evidence regarding causation of any physical or emotional injuries should be barred. The Motion is unopposed and is, therefore, GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
