FORD v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 210

ENTRY RESOLVING EXHIBIT OBJECTIONS - The parties have filed their exhibit objections and their responses thereto and have provided the exhibits in question to the Court for review. The Court, being duly advised, now resolves the objections as follows. ***SEE ENTRY*** Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 9/5/2018. (JDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
BRIGID A. FORD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARION COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Cause No. 1:15-cv-1989-WTL-DML
)
)
)
)
)

ENTRY RESOLVING EXHIBIT OBJECTIONS
The parties have filed their exhibit objections and their responses thereto and have
provided the exhibits in question to the Court for review. The Court, being duly advised, now
resolves the objections as follows.
The Plaintiff’s Objections to Exhibits the Defendant Wishes to Offer1
One of the two remaining claims in this case is the Plaintiff’s claim that two of her coworkers, Carol Ladd and Eva Watts, with whom she worked from roughly October 2013 through
December 2013, subjected her to a hostile work environment because of her disability. The

1

Many of the exhibits at issue were originally listed on the Plaintiff’s exhibit list; the
Plaintiff has removed them from her list and now objects to the Defendant offering them.
Conversely, the Defendant now seeks to offer—over the Plaintiff’s objection—exhibits to which
it objected, at least in part, when they were included on the Plaintiff’s exhibit list. In the
remainder of this Entry, the Court will refer to the exhibits to which the Plaintiff now objects as
the Defendant’s Exhibits and vice versa, regardless of which party originally listed the exhibit in
question. Also, some documents are included in more than one exhibit; for example, some of the
Plaintiff’s exhibits consist of several documents, some or all of which are contained as separately
numbered exhibits on the Defendant’s exhibit list. Obviously, even if this Entry lists only one of
the applicable exhibit numbers, the ruling applies equally to the documents if they are also
contained in a different exhibit. At trial, counsel shall refer to each exhibit simply by its exhibit
number, without referring to either party.

Plaintiff objects to exhibits that relate to discipline the Plaintiff received that did not relate to the
time she worked with Ladd and/or Watts and conflicts she had with co-workers other than Ladd
and Watts, arguing that those exhibits constitute propensity evidence that is inadmissible
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 404. The exhibits in those categories are: 30-35, 52,
58, 59, 62, 207 (which includes 2010, 2013-19, and 2048), 214-16, 247-49, 251, 284, 286-87,
291, 298, 2003-09, and 2011-12.2
Rule 404(a) provides that “[e]vidence of a person’s character or character trait is not
admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the
character or trait.” Rule 404(b)(1) provides that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not
admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person
acted in accordance with the character.” The exhibits in question clearly implicate this rule; they
are evidence of actions taken by the Plaintiff (the actions that led to her being disciplined or to
her co-workers lodging complaints against her) that the Defendant wishes to introduce to show
that she had a particular character trait, that is, that she had difficulty getting along with people at
work. The Defendant argues that the exhibits are nonetheless admissible pursuant to Rule
404(b)(2), which provides that the type of evidence generally excluded by Rule 404(b)(1) “may

2

The Plaintiff also objects to Exhibits 76, 116, 217, and 300 as being “outside of the
relevant time period defined by this Court.” Dkt. No. 206 at 2. Those exhibits are listed on the
Plaintiff’s most recent exhibit list, see Dkt. No. 201, and also are objected to by the Defendant,
see Dkt. No. 200. The objections are accordingly SUSTAINED. The Court assumes that the
Plaintiff also does not intend to offer Exhibit 299, which appears to be related to Exhibit 300;
accordingly, the Defendant’s objection to Exhibit 299 is SUSTAINED. Finally, the Plaintiff has
withdrawn Exhibits 3, 24, 53, 65, 71, 74, 75, 77, 265-74, and 1001, so the Defendant’s objections
to those exhibits are SUSTAINED. The Court notes that the Plaintiff states that she withdrew
Exhibit 65 in January 2018, see Dkt. No. 206 at 2, but she lists it on her latest exhibit list. If, in
fact, she wishes to offer this exhibit, she shall use the Bates stamped version of it.
2

be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident”:
However, the discipline Plaintiff received before May 2013 and post-Ladd and
Watts is relevant to this matter because it goes to the motivation and intent behind
Ladd’s and Watt’s [sic] actions. See FED R. EVID. 404(b). The various exhibits
indicating that Plaintiff had issues getting along with other coworkers besides
Ladd and Watts support MCSO’s theory that Plaintiff engaged in clashes with
coworkers and upset her coworkers. This evidence is critical to MCSO’s case
because it shows that the motivation and intent behind Ladd’s and Watt’s [sic]
interactions with Plaintiff were not due to Plaintiff’s disability.
Dkt. No. 205 at 2-3. This argument skips a logical step, however. In order for a clash with
another co-worker or a supervisor to serve as evidence of Ladd’s and Watts’s motive and intent,
it must first serve as evidence that the fact that the other clash occurred—that the Plaintiff was
“difficult” on another occasion—shows that the Plaintiff was “difficult” with Ladd and Watts as
well.3 That is what Rule 404(b) prohibits. As the Seventh Circuit very recently explained:
to overcome an opponent’s objection to the introduction of other-act evidence, the
proponent of the evidence must first establish that the other act is relevant to a
specific purpose other than the person’s character or propensity to behave in a
certain way. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 404(b). Other-act evidence need not be
excluded whenever a propensity inference can be drawn. But its relevance to
“another purpose” must be established through a chain of reasoning that does
not rely on the forbidden inference that the person has a certain character and
acted in accordance with that character on the occasion charged in the case. If
the proponent can make this initial showing, the district court must in every case
assess whether the probative value of the other-act evidence is substantially
outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and may exclude the evidence under
Rule 403 if the risk is too great. The court’s Rule 403 balancing should take
account of the extent to which the non-propensity fact for which the evidence is
offered actually is at issue in the case.

3

Indeed, admission of these exhibits almost certainly would lead to the Plaintiff offering
evidence to show her version of the events described therein and evidence regarding the cause of
any conflicts she had with others, thus “risk[ing] creating a sideshow and sending the trial off
track.” Duran v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 653 F.3d 632, 645 (7th Cir. 2011). Thus even if the
exhibits were relevant as evidence relating to motive or intention, the Court would exclude them
pursuant to Rule 403.
3

Burton v. City of Zion, ___ F.3d ___, 2018 WL 4039036, at *4 (7th Cir. Aug. 24, 2018) (citing
United States v. Gomez, 763 F.3d 845, 853 (7th Cir. 2014)). Absent any evidence that an event
to which a particular exhibit relates informed Ladd’s or Watts’s opinion of the Plaintiff and
therefore explained their behavior toward her, which is unlikely given that most of the events
occurred after they worked with the Plaintiff, the exhibits are not admissible and the Plaintiff’s
objection to them is SUSTAINED. That said, this ruling of course does not limit any evidence
that directly relates to Ladd’s and/or Watts’s experience with or knowledge of the Plaintiff
before or during the relevant time period. In addition, the Plaintiff is admonished that the
applicable rules of evidence work both ways, and she should not attempt to offer evidence about
her general ability to work well with others or her job performance outside of the relevant time
period, nor should those topics be mentioned in opening statement. If the Defendant believes
that the Plaintiff opens the door to these topics during the trial, counsel may raise that issue with
the Court outside of the presence of the jury, and the Court’s ruling regarding the admissibility of
these exhibits may be revisited.
For the remainder of her exhibit objections, the Plaintiff has offered summary
objections—simply referencing by number various rules of evidence on a table—to many of the
exhibits the Defendant wishes to offer at trial. The Plaintiff’s summary objections to the
following exhibits are OVERRULED: Exhibit 66/2020 (including the objection to the
Defendant’s redactions); Exhibit 2000 (assuming a proper foundation is laid); Exhibit 2036;4 and
the Defendant’s redactions to Exhibit 2063 (included in Exhibit 79).5

4

The Plaintiff’s objection to Exhibit 122, which includes Exhibit 2036 but also includes
additional, irrelevant information, is SUSTAINED.
5
The Defendant may choose not to make its proposed redactions, to which the Plaintiff
objects, in the first paragraph of Exhibit 2063 in light of the Court’s ruling below with regard to
the mention of the Plaintiff’s medication in Exhibit 2061.
4

With regard to Exhibits 2039-47 and 2049-54, the Plaintiff’s relevancy objections are
SUSTAINED. These exhibits relate to disciplinary actions taken against Ladd and Watts
unrelated to the Plaintiff. The Defendant argues that they are relevant because they support “the
proposition that MCSO disciplined Ladd [and Watts] for violations of MCSO policy, which
supports MCSO’s theory that had Ladd [or Watts] violated MCSO policy while assigned to
visitation, MCSO would have disciplined her.” Dkt. 205-1 at 11, 13. That argument is without
merit. The issue in this trial is not how the Defendant chose to discipline its employees, but
whether it fulfilled certain obligations under the ADA with regard to the Plaintiff.
With regard to the Plaintiff’s relevancy objection to Exhibit 2056, the Defendant argues
that the exhibit
is relevant because it is an email between Walterman and Grider dated February
4, 2014, which when [sic] Walterman supervised Plaintiff, Ladd, and Watts in
visitation. Walterman and Grider will testify that the two were setting up a
meeting to discuss the issues in visitation between Plaintiff, Ladd, and Watts.
Thus, Exhibit 2056 is relevant to Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims as to
Ladd and Watts.
Dkt. No. 205-1 at 20. The fact that the meeting occurred is certainly relevant, but it is wholly
unnecessary to introduce an exhibit that shows that the meeting was initiated and arranged via an
email. This exhibit offers nothing of relevance; the Plaintiff’s objection to it is SUSTAINED.
There are numerous exhibits that consist of medical records in which the Defendant has
redacted all mention of the Plaintiff’s accident. While the Court has granted a motion in limine
relating to that issue, the Court finds that the redactions in question are not necessary. It is not
prejudicial for the jury to see dispassionate mentions of the cause of her disability in her medical
records, but it might be confusing for the jury to see seemingly random redactions in medical
records. The motion in limine ruling was meant to eliminate the prejudice to the Defendant that
would arise if the fact that the Plaintiff was injured in the line of duty as a law enforcement
5

officer was emphasized by the Plaintiff in order to garner sympathy from the jury when that fact
is not relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims. The Plaintiff’s objections to redactions that involve only
mention of the accident are SUSTAINED. This includes Exhibits 255, 256, 259, and 2088-92,6
as well as NP-SOUTHEAST_014 (part of Exhibit 258 and 2089). That said, the Court urges the
parties to carefully consider the extent to which either party needs to admit the Plaintiff’s
medical records. While they are admissible, presumably they will in large part be cumulative of
the medical providers’ testimony at trial. The Court will instruct the jury that the law does not
require any party to present as exhibits all papers and things mentioned during the trial, and
counsel would do well to consider the fact that it is prudent not to overload the jury with
unnecessary exhibits.
With regard to Exhibit 2061 (contained in Exhibit 79), the Plaintiff objects to the
Defendant’s redactions. The Court finds that most of the redactions proposed by the Defendant
are unnecessary; the jury will know about the Plaintiff’s accident, and the fact that the Plaintiff
could not take her medication at work is mentioned in the exhibit not as a failure to
accommodate, but just as a fact, and that fact is relevant to her need for a set schedule. That said,
the Plaintiff may not be asked about or offer testimony that the Defendant failed to accommodate
any request she made regarding her medication. The following shall be redacted7 from Exhibit
2061 so that accommodations not at issue in this case and the issue of retaliation are not
interjected into the trial, thus confusing the jury: (1) the sentence in the first paragraph

6

In Exhibits 2088 and 2089, the entire sentence “Her colonoscopy got rescheduled for
1/2015 due to her husband having is surgery [sic]” should be redacted, as it is irrelevant.
7
The Plaintiff has given the Court copies of exhibits that have been highlighted to show
which redactions the Plaintiff objects to. Except as otherwise noted in this Entry, the Court has
addressed only those highlighted redactions, and all other proposed redactions shall remain in the
exhibits used at trial. If the Plaintiff has not provided the highlighted versions of the exhibits to
the Defendant, she shall do so immediately.
6

beginning “When I came back to work . . .”; (2) the sentence in the first paragraph beginning
“Those accommodations . . .”; (3) in the fourth paragraph, the sentence beginning “Further, I
believe that my schedule . . . “; and (4) in the fourth paragraph, the sentence “I believe that I am
being punished for complaining.”
With regard to Exhibits 2064-70, 2072, 2074-75, the Plaintiff’s objections are
OVERRULED, except to the extent that mentions of the Plaintiff’s accident have been redacted.
The Court does not see any basis for the Plaintiff’s summary objections to these exhibits, all of
which consist of the Plaintiff’s medical records. Neither party provided Exhibit 2073 to the
Court, so the Plaintiff’s objection to that exhibit is taken under advisement. The Court
reiterates that it is not clear why it will be necessary to offer any of these exhibits at trial.
Exhibits 2078-91 consist of medical records from the Plaintiff’s primary care physician,
Dr. Jason Rieser. Again, most of these records seem redundant, and some are not particularly
relevant, but the Plaintiff’s objections are based on hearsay and Rules 403 and 404, and those
summary objections are OVERRULED. The various redactions by the Defendant generally are
appropriate, with the exception of mentions of the accident. To minimize the jury’s confusion,
the Defendant shall redact the entire “Cough” section in Exhibit 2090, as well as the entire
paragraph that begins “She feels sick at work many times” on the previous page; the entire
“Cough” section also should be redacted from Exhibit 2091.
With regard to Exhibits 2092, 2094, and 2095, the Plaintiff gives no basis for her
objections, but simply notes that she stipulates with regard to the exhibits’ authenticity only,
“subject to appropriate redactions.” Other than the redactions relating to the accident, the Court
finds the Defendant’s redactions to be appropriate. To minimize jury confusion, in Exhibit 2095

7

the Defendant shall redact the first three sentences of the second paragraph, but should not redact
“this getting resolved” and “resolution.”
Finally, Exhibits 67, 288, and 2076 relate to the fitness for duty evaluation that the
Plaintiff underwent in May 2013. The Defendant argues that these exhibits are relevant because
the examination “confirmed Plaintiff was unable to perform the essential functions of her
position.” Dkt. No. 205-1 at 40, 46. However, there is no dispute that the Plaintiff was not able
to perform the essential functions of her job as a law enforcement officer, and in any event the
specifics of how and why the Plaintiff ended up in the visitation position are not relevant to the
claims or defenses in this case. Accordingly, the Defendant has not articulated how these
exhibits are relevant, and the Plaintiff’s objections to them are SUSTAINED.
The Defendant’s Objections to Exhibits the Plaintiff Wishes to Offer
The Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4, which consists of documents setting forth
the jail’s policies and procedures with regard to disabled inmates and visits to inmates, on
relevancy grounds. With regard to the jail’s policy with regard to disabled inmates, the Plaintiff
argues that
MCSD has asserted that Ms. Ford’s proposed accommodation was an undue
hardship, but this policy discusses what MCSD is able to provide to inmates, who
are subject to the same budget as employees at MCSD. This policy thus relates to
the financial resources of MCSD as well as the impact the requested
accommodation would have on MCSD’s operation and speaks to MCSD’s
defense of undue hardship is irrelevant to the issues in this case.
Dkt. No. 206 at 3. This argument is without merit. Nothing in the document would assist the
jury in any way in determining whether the accommodation requested by the Plaintiff was an
undue hardship on the Defendant. The objection is SUSTAINED. With regard to the visitation
procedures document, the Plaintiff argues that it is relevant to the issue of whether she was
qualified to perform her job in visitation. However, the document does not directly relate to the
8

Plaintiff’s job duties. If the Plaintiff believes that the testimony or other evidence admitted at
trial makes something in the visitation policies relevant to some disputed issue, she may offer
that portion of Exhibit 4; otherwise, the relevancy objection is SUSTAINED.
Next, the Defendant objects to Exhibits 7 and 232, which consist of a letter informing the
Plaintiff that she was being placed on administrative leave with pay following her accident
pending a fitness for duty exam and a form effectuating the leave, and Exhibit 12, which is a
letter informing the Plaintiff that the Defendant determined her accident to be nonpreventable.
The Plaintiff argues that these documents should be admitted because they provide useful
background information, they are not prejudicial to the Defendant, and “[t]he jury may not
correctly weigh Ms. Ford’s testimony alone without documentary support that she was not at
fault, which would unfairly and unnecessarily prejudice Ms. Ford.” Dkt. No. 206 at 4-5. In light
of the fact that there is no dispute regarding whether the Plaintiff was at fault for the accident,
there will be nothing for the jury to weigh the Plaintiff’s testimony against. In any event,
whether she was at fault is completely irrelevant to her claims under the ADA. The Court has
ruled that the Plaintiff may mention the fact in her testimony to provide the context in which her
disability arose. This is sufficient to avoid any improper speculation by the jury regarding
whether the Plaintiff is at fault for the injuries that led to her disability. Permitting the admission
of documents with regard to this issue would not add anything to the Plaintiff’s uncontradicted
testimony on this peripheral issue and therefore would be cumulative. The objections to Exhibits
7, 12, and 232 are SUSTAINED.
The Defendant next objects to Exhibits 17-23, 25-27, 107, 208, 231, 246, and 263. These
documents relate to the interactive process engaged in between the Plaintiff and the Defendant
between June 2013 and October 2013 which resulted in her accepting the visitation position with

9

certain accommodations provided by the Defendant. The Court agrees with the Defendant that
none of these documents are relevant to the issues remaining in this case. The Plaintiff argues
that “these exhibits provide relevant background information and specifically provide
information to fill a substantial time gap between the time Ms. Ford was injured and her
assignment to the visitation clerk position. Without these exhibits, the jury may improperly
assume that Ms. Ford was completely off work for over a year, which would lead to unnecessary
prejudice against Ms. Ford and confusion by the jury.” Id. at 5. It is not at all clear to the Court
how the Plaintiff would be prejudiced if the jury mistakenly believed she was “completely off
work for over a year” as a result of her accident, but in any event the Plaintiff may testify briefly
about how long she was off work and what occurred during the months in question. The
specific details of the back-and-forth between the parties during that time that are set forth in the
exhibits are simply not relevant and would serve only to interject extraneous issues into the trial.
Nor is the amount the Defendant paid for accommodations it provided the Plaintiff relevant to
whether the accommodation at issue in this case would have been an undue hardship on the
Defendant. The objections to Exhibits 17-23, 25-27, 107, 208, 231, 246, and 263 are
SUSTAINED. The same goes for Exhibit 2055, which is on the Defendant’s exhibit list. The
Plaintiff objects only to the Defendant’s proposed redactions of that exhibit, but the Court sees
no reason why that exhibit should be offered at trial.
Exhibit 70 consists of what appears to be a slide presentation entitled Marion County
Sheriff’s Department, Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Defendant argues that it is
irrelevant and could confuse the jury; the Plaintiff argues in response:
Both of these presentations are directly relevant to Ms. Ford’s harassment claim.
As part of her harassment claim, Ms. Ford must show that MCSD did not take
reasonable steps to correct the harassing behavior of Ms. Ladd and Ms. Watts or
prohibit the harassment from recurring. (7th Circuit Pattern Civil Jury Instruction
10

No. 3.04). The existence of a harassment policy and MCSD’s knowledge of the
ADA will be factors in considering whether MCSD took reasonable steps to correct
or prohibit Ms. Ladd’s and Ms. Watts’s harassing behavior. These policies also
relate to whether MCSD knew or should have known about the behavior of
MCSD’s employees.
Dkt. No. 206 at 8. The Court finds that the information contained on these slides, in a vacuum, is
not relevant to the issue of whether the Defendant violated the ADA. The slides themselves do
not appear to represent the Defendant’s policy; rather, they appear to have been used as part of a
presentation of information. However, the Court has no way of knowing when and to whom that
presentation was given or what additional information was provided within the presentation.
Absent a proper foundation, Exhibit 70 will not be admitted.
The Defendant’s objection to Exhibit 206 is taken under advisement; the salary of Watts
after she was transferred may be relevant if evidence is introduced that the transfer occurred for
disciplinary reasons.
Exhibit 235 consists of a letter of caution issued to Walterman dated April 17, 2015. On
its face, this document will not tell the jury anything relevant. If, in fact, it relates to
Walterman’s treatment of Ford’s claims of harassment by Watts and Ladd, the Plaintiff can
question Walterman about it, but it is not clear to the Court what admitting the exhibit would
add.
The parties’ positions with regard to Exhibits 258 and 1004 are somewhat confusing.
The Plaintiff lists these exhibits on her own exhibit list, but objects to many of the same
documents when they appear on the Defendant’s exhibit list. Defendant objects to those portions
of Exhibits 258 and 1004 that the Plaintiff intends to use only to the extent that the Defendant
believes certain information should be redacted. The Plaintiff objects to some of the proposed
redactions. With regard to Exhibit 258:

11



In NP-SOUTHEAST_032, there is no need to redact “They did try to make adjustments
for her.”



In NP-SOUTHEAST_034 (contained in both Exhibit 2081 and 2082), everything in the
“Follow-up” paragraph after “8 weeks” should be redacted.



In NP-SOUTHEAST_038 (contained in Exhibit 2080), there is no need to redact “they
put her off work 5/13.”



In NP-SOUTHEAST_039 (contained in Exhibit 2080), no redactions are needed.



In NP_RIESER_0010, the “Screening” and “Seasonal allergies” sections should be
redacted (it does not appear that there is a dispute regarding those redactions), and “She is
filing federal lawsuit against her employer for hostile work environment and
discrimination. Court date will be 10/2017” should be redacted from both places that it
appears.

With regard to Exhibit 1004, the Court finds all of the Defendant’s redactions to be appropriate
except for those that simply mention the accident.
Exhibits 282 and 283 consist of certificates awarded to Eva Talley-Sanders and Angela
Grider for various training and education. With regard to these two exhibits, the Plaintiff argues
both of these presentations are directly relevant to Ms. Ford’s harassment claim.
As part of her harassment claim, Ms. Ford must show that MCSD did not take
reasonable steps to correct the harassing behavior of Ms. Ladd and Ms. Watts or
prohibit the harassment from recurring. (7th Circuit Pattern Civil Jury Instruction
No. 3.04). The existence of a harassment policy and MCSD’s knowledge of the
ADA will be factors in considering whether MCSD took reasonable steps to
correct or prohibit Ms. Ladd’s and Ms. Watts’s harassing behavior. These policies
also relate to whether MCSD knew or should have known about the behavior of
MCSD’s employees.
Dkt. No. 206 at 12. This argument does not actually seem to relate to the exhibits in question. It
appears to the Court that many of the documents contained in these exhibits are entirely

12

irrelevant to the issues in this case; for example, how is it relevant that Talley-Sanders
“demonstrated competence in working with children three through five years old” in 1978, or
that Grider completed Windows 95 training in 1998? To the extent that any of the documents
might be relevant, this would seem to be another instance in which the exhibit does not add
anything to testimony regarding the relevant event. Accordingly, the objections to Exhibits 282
and 283 are SUSTAINED.
Exhibit 308 consists of Marion County’s budget for 2013. This exhibit is unlikely to
provide any meaningful information to the jury; accordingly, the Defendant’s objection on Rule
403 grounds is SUSTAINED. In the event that the Defendant’s financial means to
accommodate the Plaintiff’s request for a fixed schedule is disputed at trial, the Plaintiff may
question the appropriate witness(es) using information contained on this exhibit as appropriate.
Finally, the Plaintiff objects to the Defendant’s proposed redactions to some of the
Plaintiff’s Exhibits, which the Court resolves as follows:
 With regard to Exhibit 37/2022, the objection to the redaction is OVERRULED;
 With regard to Exhibit 41/2038, the objection to the redaction is OVERRULED, and the
redaction should also include “My requests were simple.”
 With regard to Exhibit 233, the Defendant’s objection is OVERRULED; there is no need
to redact the Plaintiff’s salary from the exhibit.
Conclusion
The Court has endeavored to address each of the parties’ exhibit objections, with the
exception of that involving Exhibit 264, which will be addressed by separate entry. The parties
shall promptly notify the Court if any exhibit was overlooked.

13

If the objection to an exhibit has been sustained in this Entry, it shall not be discussed or
offered into evidence except outside the presence of the jury for the purpose of preserving the
issue for appeal. To the extent that counsel wishes to make an offer to prove regarding an
excluded exhibit for the record, he or she shall inform the Court of that fact outside of the
presence of the jury before the relevant witness begins to testify.
SO ORDERED: 9/5/18

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Copies to all counsel of record via electronic notification

14