Cooper et al v. Nameoki Township et al

Filing 46

ORDER GRANTING Motion in Limine filed by Nameoki Township and Randall Veissman [Doc. 41] and GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Motion in Limine filed by Carol Cooper and Linda McKechan [Doc. 39]. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 10/2/15. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CAROL COOPER, et al,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
NAMEOKI TOWNSHIP, et al.,,
Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-634-SMY-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion in Limine (Doc. 41) and Plaintiffs’
Motion in Limine (Doc. 39). The Court considered the motions during the final pre-trial
conference, a transcript of which can be found in the record.
Defendants’ Motions in Limine
Plaintiffs have no objections to Defendants’ motions in limine. Accordingly, Defendants’
Motion is GRANTED in its entirety.
Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine
•

Motion in limine No. 1 – any claim that one or both of the Plaintiffs were paid vacation
pay, sick pay, or any other form of compensation to which the Plaintiffs were not entitled.
The Motion is GRANTED.

•

Motion in limine No. 2 – any testimony, argument, or reference as to how and when
Plaintiffs were paid their final wages, including but not limited to vacation pay, sick pay,
or other compensation. The Motion is GRANTED.

•

Motion in limine No. 3 – any testimony from any individuals others than the individuals
identified by Defendants in the Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures. To the
extent it seeks to exclude testimony to individuals other than those who were identified in
the disclosures, the Motion is DENIED. However, regarding Laura Marchetti and Heidi
1

Oehley – who were never identified by Defendants in their Rule 26 disclosures – their
testimony will be limited to the subject areas that were covered in their depositions.
•

Motion in limine No. 4 – any testimony regarding destruction of signs during the election
preceding the termination/refusal to reappoint the Plaintiffs. The Motion is DENIED.

•

Motion in limine No. 5 – any argument, testimony, or inference that Plaintiffs’
employment with the Defendant Township was attributable to either Plaintiffs’ job
performance. The Motion is unopposed and, is therefore GRANTED.

•

Motion in limine No. 6 – any claim or testimony from any source that one or both of the
Plaintiffs were “unhappy” or “displeased” with the outcome of the Nameoki 2013
elections. The Motion is GRANTED. However, this does not prohibit Mr. Veesman
from testifying as to his perceptions based on his own observations.

•

Motion in limine No. 7 – any testimony or evidence that Linda McKechan “would not
work with Scott Oney.” The Motion is GRANTED. However, this does not prohibit
Mr. Veesman from testifying as to his perceptions based on his own observations.

•

Motion in limine No. 8 – any testimony from Laura Marchetti. The Motion is DENIED.

•

Motion in limine No. 9 – any testimony, argument, or inference that there is or was any
legal reason why any individual employed in the jobs previously performed by either
Plaintiff had to be a political ally or political supporter of Randall Veisman. The Motion
is unopposed and, is therefore GRANTED.

•

Motion in limine No. 10 – any speculation that either Plaintiff posted bond for Linda
McKechan’s son at any time. The Motion is unopposed and, is therefore GRANTED.

•

Motion in limine No. 11 – any allegation, claim, or assertion of any sort regarding the
shredding of documents, shredding of records or similar type claims. The Motion is
GRANTED.

•

Motion in limine No. 12 – any testimony or evidence about the new supervisor having to
hand write checks for about the first month in office, and any suggestion, inference or
testimony that either plaintiff had disposed of old blank checks. The Motion is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 2, 2015
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge
2