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)

Download PDF
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

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?