Branning v. Wayne County, 3:15-CV-1936. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20180511817
Visitors: 13
Filed: May 01, 2018
Latest Update: May 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER ROBERT D. MARIANI , District Judge . AND NOW, THIS 1 st DAY OF MAY, 2018, upon review of Defendants' motions in limine (Docs. 40, 42, 44) and Plaintiff's motions in limine (Docs. 46, 48, 50), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Irrelevant Testimony (Doc. 40) is DEFERRED. 2. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Loss of Future Earnings (Doc. 42) is DENIED. 3. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Irrelevant Evidence C
Summary: ORDER ROBERT D. MARIANI , District Judge . AND NOW, THIS 1 st DAY OF MAY, 2018, upon review of Defendants' motions in limine (Docs. 40, 42, 44) and Plaintiff's motions in limine (Docs. 46, 48, 50), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Irrelevant Testimony (Doc. 40) is DEFERRED. 2. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Loss of Future Earnings (Doc. 42) is DENIED. 3. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Irrelevant Evidence Co..
More
ORDER
ROBERT D. MARIANI, District Judge.
AND NOW, THIS 1st DAY OF MAY, 2018, upon review of Defendants' motions in limine (Docs. 40, 42, 44) and Plaintiff's motions in limine (Docs. 46, 48, 50), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Irrelevant Testimony (Doc. 40) is DEFERRED.
2. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Loss of Future Earnings (Doc. 42) is DENIED.
3. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Irrelevant Evidence Concerning Other Employees (Doc. 44) is DEFERRED.
4. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony and Evidence related to Plaintiff's Performance from 2011-2013 (Doc. 46) is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude the Summary Offense Result (Doc. 48) is GRANTED IN PART AND DEFERRED IN PART:
a. Plaintiff's motion is granted to the extent that parties shall be precluded from referencing the outcome of the criminal matter initiated by Plaintiff's filing of a police report against Defendant Botjer for alleged assault.
b. Plaintiff's motion is deferred to the extent that should Plaintiff falsely suggest at trial, either expressly or by reasonable implication, that the criminal matter resulted in a conviction or any other findings of guilt, Defendants shall be able to introduce evidence of the acquittal for rebuttal or impeachment purposes.
6. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony Related to Plaintiff's Alcohol Rehabilitation (Doc. 50) is GRANTED.
Source: Leagle
