Gonzalez v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 18-CV-7660 (RA). (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20200312c94
Visitors: 1
Filed: Mar. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2020
Summary: ORDER RONNIE ABRAMS , District Judge . As will be discussed in more detail at the final pre-trial conference on May 21, 2020, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the admission of evidence regarding Plaintiffs termination or other disciplinary actions against him, including through the testimony of J. Pepitone, would be irrelevant and unduly prejudicial to Plaintiff on the issue ofliability. The Court would, however, like to hear from the parties further on the admissibility of such eviden
Summary: ORDER RONNIE ABRAMS , District Judge . As will be discussed in more detail at the final pre-trial conference on May 21, 2020, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the admission of evidence regarding Plaintiffs termination or other disciplinary actions against him, including through the testimony of J. Pepitone, would be irrelevant and unduly prejudicial to Plaintiff on the issue ofliability. The Court would, however, like to hear from the parties further on the admissibility of such evidenc..
More
ORDER
RONNIE ABRAMS, District Judge.
As will be discussed in more detail at the final pre-trial conference on May 21, 2020, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the admission of evidence regarding Plaintiffs termination or other disciplinary actions against him, including through the testimony of J. Pepitone, would be irrelevant and unduly prejudicial to Plaintiff on the issue ofliability. The Court would, however, like to hear from the parties further on the admissibility of such evidence with respect to damages. Accordingly, no later than April 13, 2020, the parties shall file supplemental letters addressing whether, and to what extent, evidence regarding disciplinary actions against Plaintiff (including his termination) may be admissible with respect to damages on his claims for lost future wages and diminished earning capacity.
Plaintiffs in limine motion is thus granted without prejudice to renew. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 27.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
