JOYCE v. POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

Filing 66

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Fact Witnesses. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
KATHLEEN JOYCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
POSTMASTER GENERAL,
UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-00310-JAW

ORDER ON MOTION TO EXCLUDE FACT WITNESSES
On April 27, 2012, the Postal Service moved to exclude the testimony of
certain fact witnesses in the upcoming trial in this case. Mot. in Limine to Exclude
Certain Fact Witnesses (Docket # 50) (Def.’s Mot.).

On May 3, 2012, Ms. Joyce

responded, objecting to their exclusion. Resp. to Decl. of AUSA Evan Roth and
Associated Docs. (Docket # 59). Although the Postal Service first asked for the
exclusion of eight witnesses, Ms. Joyce whittled her list to four: Amanda Bouchey,
Paul Dean, Michael Morin and Rachel Stevenson. With jury selection scheduled for
May 7, 2012 and trial to begin May 23, 2012, the parties were anxious to obtain a
quick ruling as to whether the Court would allow Ms. Joyce to call these four
witnesses. Accordingly, the Court held a telephone conference of counsel and issued
a ruling on the pending motion.
The Postal Service’s motion to exclude Michael Morin and Rachel Stevenson
was based on Ms. Joyce’s delayed notice. The discovery period ended on March 21,

2011 and Ms. Joyce filed a witness list, including Mr. Morin and Ms. Stevenson, ten
days late. Def.’s Mot. at 2. The Court declined to exclude either witness since there
was no suggestion that the Postal Service was prejudiced by the ten-day delay.
The Postal Service’s motion to exclude Amanda Bouchey and Paul Dean was
based on Ms. Joyce’s substantially late notice of her intent to call these witnesses.
Id. Ms. Joyce did not give the Postal Service notice of these witnesses until April 4,
2012. Id. The Court agreed with the Postal Service that Ms. Joyce’s failure to
provide more timely notice of these witnesses was a discovery violation, but the
Court rejected witness exclusion as the proper sanction.

Instead, the Court

informed the Postal Service that if it wished to undertake a discovery deposition of
either witness, it should inform the Court and permission would be granted.
Having concluded that Ms. Joyce committed a discovery violation, the Court
reserved ruling as to what, if any, sanction it would impose.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 7th day of May, 2012

2