Barnette et al v. Grizzly Processing, LLC et al

Filing 356

ORDER: Court adopts Magistrate Judge Ingram's Report & Recommendation 331 as the opinion of the Court. Dft's motions for sanctions 252 286 are GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 5/22/2012. (RKT) cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PIKEVILLE
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
Civil No. 10-77-ART
)
)
v.
)
ORDER ADOPTING R&R
)
GRIZZLY PROCESSING, LLC, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
*** *** *** ***
SUSAN BARNETTE, et al.,

The Defendants have moved for sanctions against Plaintiff Mark Tackett for his
disclosure of inadmissible photographs during jury selection for the first trial. See R. 252;
R. 286. The Court referred these motions to Magistrate Judge Ingram. See Mem. Op. &
Order, R. 255 at 8. Magistrate Judge Ingram has now recommended that the Defendants’
motions be granted in part and denied in part. See R. 331 at 1. Because Magistrate Judge
Ingram found that Tackett’s conduct during jury selection was not done in bad faith, he
recommended denying the Defendants’ request to impose attorney’s fees and costs on
Tackett. Id. at 7. But Magistrate Judge Ingram also recommended granting the Defendants’
request to exclude the photographs disclosed by Tackett from any future trial in this case. Id.
The parties have not filed any objections to this recommendation, and the time for filing any
objections has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Ingram’s Report and
Recommendation, R. 331, as the opinion of the Court. It is ORDERED that the Defendants’

motions for sanctions, R. 252; R. 286, are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
This the 22nd day of May, 2012.

2