Veliz v. City of Minneapolis et al

Filing 120

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 57 Motion in Limine; denying 58 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 59 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion in Limine; granting 73 Motion in Limine; denying a moot 75 Motion in Limine; denying 77 Motion in Limine (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Richard H. Kyle on 10/6/08. (ds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Giovanni Veliz, Plaintiff, Civ. No. 07-2376 (RHK/JJK) ORDER v. City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department, Defendants. For the reasons stated on the record at the October 2, 2008 hearing in this matter, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony by William McManus

Regarding Evidence of Plaintiff's Job Performance (Doc. No. 73) is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Misconduct

by Lee Edwards (Doc. No. 75) is DENIED AS MOOT; 3. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Other Applicants'

Backgrounds and/or Qualifications (Doc. No. 77) is DENIED; 4. The City's Motion in Limine Number 1 (Doc. No. 57) is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows: a. Part 1 of the Motion (concerning evidence of the August 2007

meeting at which Lieutenant Arradondo was discussed) is GRANTED; b. Parts 2 and 3 of the Motion (concerning the DEA Liaison position

and the 2005 commendation) are DENIED AS MOOT; and c. Parts 4 and 5 of the Motion (concerning executive training and pre-

2005 discrimination) are DENIED;1 5. The City's Motion in Limine Number 2 (Doc. No. 58) is DENIED, subject

to redaction of the probable-cause finding; 6. MOOT; and 7. The City's Motion in Limine Number 4 (Doc. No. 60) is GRANTED IN The City's Motion in Limine Number 3 (Doc. No. 59) is DENIED AS

PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as it concerns the City's

responses to Plaintiff's October 2005 charges of discrimination; and b. The Motion is DENIED insofar as it concerns the City's response to

Plaintiff's January 2006 charge of discrimination/retaliation. Dated: October 6, 2008 s/ Richard H. Kyle RICHARD H. KYLE United States District Judge

As noted at the hearing, the Court encourages the parties to discuss their willingness to stipulate that Plaintiff filed his discrimination charges in good faith, thereby obviating the need to introduce this evidence at trial. -2-

1