Dorman v. Clinton, Township of

Filing 159

ORDER Resolving Motions in Limine. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 159, PageID.5669 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL DORMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 15-cv-12552
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS IN LIMINE
On June 22, 2022, the Court held the Final Pre-Trial Conference in this action.
For the reasons explained on the record during that conference, the parties’ motions
in limine are resolved as follows:
 Plaintiffs’ motion to adjourn trial (ECF No. 134) is TERMINATED AS
MOOT;
 Plaintiffs’ motions in limine (ECF Nos. 140, 141, 142, 143, and 144) are
GRANTED;
 Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude testimony or documentary evidence
of loss of use damages after the entry of the stipulated order on December 8,
2017 (ECF No. 145), is DENIED; and
 Defendant’s motion in limine to strike witnesses and exclude evidence (ECF
No. 146) is GRANTED as described herein. Absent further order of the
1

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 159, PageID.5670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 2 of 3

Court, Plaintiffs shall not call as witnesses or introduce into evidence as trial
any witnesses or exhibits that were not disclosed during discovery and/or that
were first disclosed in Plaintiffs’ Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures or Plaintiffs’ trail
witness and exhibit lists. However, as the Court indicated on the record during
the Final Pre-Trial Conference, the Court will give Plaintiffs an opportunity
at trial to show that (1) any individual witness or any particular document was
properly the subject of a timely supplementation under Rule 26(e) and/or
could not reasonably have been disclosed to Defendant earlier than it was and
(2) allowing Plaintiffs to present the witness(es) or document(s) would not
unfairly prejudice the Defendant.
 Finally, as the Court explained on the record when discussing the motions in
limine, Plaintiffs shall be precluded from introducing evidence relating to any
criminal proceedings brought against Plaintiffs related to the property at issue.
As the Court explained, the First Amended Complaint does not contain any
allegations or claims for damages arising out of those criminal proceedings,
and those proceedings were not brought to the Court’s attention until after the
close of discovery, briefing was complete on the parties’ summary judgment
motions, and Court issued a comprehensive Opinion and Order resolving
those motions. For those reasons, in 2020, the Court declined to permit
Plaintiffs to conduct discovery into the criminal proceedings and denied
2

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 159, PageID.5671 Filed 06/22/22 Page 3 of 3

Plaintiffs permission to expand this lawsuit to include a claim for damages
arising out of those proceedings. Likewise, Plaintiffs shall not be permitted
to seek damages from Defendant based on alleged wrongs committed by the
Defendant after the filing of the First Amended Complaint. Such alleged
wrongs have not been made part of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2022

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on June 22, 2022, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

3