Ridgell-Boltz v. Astrue et al

Filing 99

Courtroom Minutes for Motion Hearing held on 12/29/2011 before Judge Richard P. Matsch. ORDERED: Unopposed Motion to Schedule a Second Pretrial Conference 95 , is moot by this setting. Plaintiff's ADEA claim is dismissed. Evidence of retaliati on for protected activity concerning sex and age permitted. Defendants' Opposed Motion for Issuance of Order to Preserve Privileges and Protections 67 , is denied. Proposed voir dire and instructions are to be submitted in paper format directl y to chambers by 4:00 p.m. January 4, 2012. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration 68 , ruled on as stated on record. (Exhaustion denied and adverse inference / spoilation issues ruled on during trial). Defendants' Motion for Leave to Fi le objections to Plaintiff's Proposed Witness Testimony and Exhibits and to Strike Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Request for a Jury and Compensatory Damages Under the ADEA 83 , ruled on as stated on record. Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Objections to Defendants' Exhibits 90 , is resolved as Court rules on relevance and admissibility issues during the course of the trial.(FTR: Bernique Abiakam) (rpmcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Date:
December 29, 2011
Courtroom Deputy:
J. Chris Smith
FTR Technician:
Bernique Abiakam
____________________________________________________________________________________
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00252-RPM
LAURA RIDGELL-BOLTZ,

Marisa L. Williams
Rhonda L. Rhodes

Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Giel Stein
Commissioner of the United States Social Security Administration, and Andrew F. Maunz
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Ruth F. Keegan
Defendants.
____________________________________________________________________________________
COURTROOM MINUTES
____________________________________________________________________________________
Trial Preparation Conference (Pending Motions)
9:52 a.m.

Court in session.

ORDERED:

Unopposed Motion to Schedule a Second Pretrial Conference [95], is moot by this
setting.

Discussion and argument regarding plaintiff’s ADEA claim.
ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s ADEA claim is dismissed. Evidence of retaliation for protected activity
concerning sex and age permitted.

Discussion regarding damages under Title VII.
Ms. Williams states plaintiff claims compensatory damages, loss of house and insurance.
Discussion and argument regarding anticipated testimony from health care providers Mark Henningsen
and Rachel Sutton. Testimony of health care providers permitted as stated on record by the Court.
Discussion and argument regarding privacy act claim. Claim will be tried as a bench tiral at a time to be
determined after the jury trial.
Discussion and argument regarding [67].

December 29, 2011
10-cv-00252-RPM
ORDERED:

Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Issuance of Order to Preserve Privileges and
Protections [67], is denied.

Discussion and argument regarding witnesses (Lists [69] and [73]).
Court states testimony from comparators is limited to substantially similar conduct for which
plaintiff was fired.
Court instructs Ms. Williams to inform Mr. Stein if and when Dr. Sutton will testify.
Counsel agree to confer regarding stipulating to FOIA issue (Vincent Dormarunno or alternate FOIA
Information Officer).
Counsel agree to waive objection to scope of direct examination for witnesses called by both parties.
Counsel further agree to confer regarding time records (Exhibit A-4) for possible stipulation.
Counsel request Court give jury a cautionary instruction regarding Yvette Keesee and Deanna ErtlLombardi’s current positions.
Court states orders entered in administrative and litigation proceedings are not admissible.
Discussion and argument regarding defendant’s exhibit A-27 (letter drafted by Mr. Black).
Exhibit A-27 not permitted.
Discussion regarding trial procedures.
ORDERED:

Proposed voir dire and instructions are to be submitted in paper format directly to
chambers by 4:00 p.m. January 4, 2012.

ORDERED:

Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration [68], ruled on as stated on record.
(Exhaustion denied and adverse inference / spoilation issues ruled on during
trial).

ORDERED:

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File objections to Plaintiff’s Proposed Witness
Testimony and Exhibits and to Strike Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s Request for a Jury and
Compensatory Damages Under the ADEA [83], ruled on as stated on record.

ORDERED:

Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendants’ Exhibits [90], is resolved as
Court rules on relevance and admissibility issues during the course of the trial.

11:25 a.m.

Court in recess.

Hearing concluded. Total time: 1 hr. 33 min.

2