McDonald v. Wichita, Kansas, City of, et al.

Filing 147

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 138 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 141 Defendants' Motion in Limine. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer on 1/13/17. (sj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MARY McDONALD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS and
)
GARY REBENSTORF,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

Case No. 14-1020-GEB

ORDER
For the reasons stated on the record during the In Limine Conference, the Court is
granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine [138]; granting in part
and denying in part Defendants’ Motion in Limine [141]; and sustaining and overruling,
in part, Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s Witnesses and Exhibits [142].
With regard to Plaintiff’s Motion [138], the motion is GRANTED and the
following evidence is excluded: Topic 1 (Campbell case and Judge Ice remarks); Topic 3
(KHRC determination); and Topic 5 (rumors). Plaintiff’s Motion [142] is DENIED and
Topic 2 (3/7/11 Dickgrafe memo) is allowed. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART
regarding Topic 4, in that witness Townsley is permitted to testify only regarding his
qualifications at hiring and his subsequent performance is excluded. With regard to
Topic 6 (collateral evidence) and Topic 7 (undisclosed evidence), the Court tentatively
1

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, with the caveat that the issues may be reassessed as
evidence is presented at trial.
With regard to Defendants’ Motion [141], the motion is GRANTED and the
following evidence is excluded: Topic D (2014 Dickgrafe incident), Topic E (Prior
representation/ disqualification), and Topic H (miscellaneous topics).

Defendants’

Motion is DENIED as follows: Topics F and G are allowed. The motion is GRANTED
IN PART regarding Topic C, and reference to the Shirkey matter will only be allowed for
the narrow purpose of impeachment during cross-examination of defendant Rebenstorf.
Counsel are to approach for a sidebar conference prior to engaging in examination
regarding the Shirkey matter.
With regard to Defendants’ Objections [142]: Objections to Topics A & B (Metz
testimony & related Pl.’s Trial Exs. 48, 51) are overruled, but counsel are cautioned
regarding the narrowing of questioning to avoid privilege issues. Objections to Topic C
(Pl.’s Trial Ex. 6) are moot per the parties’ agreement. Objections to Topic D (Pl.’s Trial
Exs. 52-54) are overruled. Objections to Topic E (Pl.’s Exs. 59-61) are moot per parties’
agreement to exclude unless necessary for impeachment. Objections to Topic F (Pl.’s Ex.
68) are upheld & the transcript excluded. Objections to Topic G (Pl.’s Ex. 29) are
overruled.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED January 13, 2017.
S/ Gwynne E. Birzer
GWYNNE E. BIRZER
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3