Estate of David Rance Rossiter et al v. Board of County Commissioners of Arapahoe County, Colorado et al

Filing 167

ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of: David Rossiters Medical Records From Southwest Chemical Dependency Program; DUI Conviction Incident at the Sump Saloon in 2006; and Incident at the Bale of Hay Saloon in 2007, and Testimony Based on Those Records, filed 10/07/2009 85 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. Jonathan Ritvo M.D 109 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 03/08/2010. (sah, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE Civil Case No. 08-cv-01661-LTB-KLM ESTATE OF DAVID RANCE ROSSITER, by Charles Rossiter and Erin Rossiter as CoPersonal Representatives, CHARLES ROSSITER, as Parent and Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of David Rance Rossiter, and ERIN ROSSITER, as Parent and Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of David Rance Rossiter, Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF GRAYSON ROBINSON, in his individual and official capacity, and OFFICER DANIEL JOSEPH MONTANA, JR., in his individual and official capacity, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ THIS MATTER is before the Court on the following motions: Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of: David Rossiter's Medical Records From Southwest Chemical Dependency Program; DUI Conviction; Incident at the Sump Saloon in 2006; and Incident at the Bale of Hay Saloon in 2007, and Testimony Based on Those Records, filed October 7, 2009 (docket # 85); and Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. Jonathan Ritvo M.D (docket #109). On March 5, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., I heard arguments on the motions listed above. For the reasons stated on the record, I hereby ORDER Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of: David Rossiter's Medical Records From Southwest Chemical Dependency Program; DUI Conviction; 1 Incident at the Sump Saloon in 2006; and Incident at the Bale of Hay Saloon in 2007, and Testimony Based on Those Records, filed October 7, 2009 (docket # 85) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, it is DENIED UNCONDITIONALLY as to the disclosure of David Rossiter's Medical Records From Southwest Chemical Dependency Program and DUI Conviction; it is GRANTED UNCONDITIONALLY as to the Incident at the Sump Saloon in 2006; and Incident at the Bale of Hay Saloon in 2007; it is DENIED CONDITIONALLY as the relevancy of David Rossiter's Medical Records From Southwest Chemical Dependency Program as to health, age, habit, and physical condition. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. Jonathan Ritvo M.D (docket #109) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, it is DENIED UNCONDITIONALLY as to Dr Ritvo's opinion regarding whether David Rossiter suffered from alcohol dependence; it is DENIED UNCONDITIONALLY as to Dr. Ritvo's opinion regarding whether as a result from suffering from alcohol dependence, Mr. Rossiter would have a reduced life expectancy; it is DENIED UNCONDITIONALLY as to Dr. Ritvo's opinion regarding whether Mr. Rossiter was intoxicated with alcohol at the time of the altercation with Mr. Montana; it is 2 GRANTED UNCONDITIONALLY as to Dr. Ritvo's opinion regarding whether Mr. Rossiter's intoxication at the time of the altercation was sufficient to impair his judgment, and to alter his emotional and behavioral responses; it is DENIED CONDITIONALLY as to Dr. Ritvo's opinion regarding whether Mr. Rossiter's aggressive behavior on the night of November 2, 2007 was caused by alcohol intoxication in the context of alcohol dependence. Dated: March 8, 2010 BY THE COURT: s/Lewis T. Babcock Lewis T. Babcock, Judge 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?