Bates v. Delmar Gardens North, Inc et al

Filing 114

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon review of the record, the Court sets forth its rulings on the parties objections to pretrial materials as follows: [SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS.]...IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in order to better accommodate the ASL interpreters in this case, the trial will be held in Courtroom 3N. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 11/21/2017. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

BETSY BATES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DELMAR GARDENS NORTH,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15-CV-00783-AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon review of the record, the Court sets
forth its rulings on the parties’ objections to pretrial materials as follows:
Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s Discovery Items that Plaintiff Intends
to Introduce Into Evidence. ECF No. 103.
Request for Admission Nos. 4 & 11: Overruled, as the responses contain partial
admissions.
Request for Admission No. 5: Overruled.
Request for Admission Nos. 7 & 8: Sustained, but Plaintiff will be permitted to
introduce the substance of the related interrogatory responses, as discussed
below.
Interrogatory Nos. 4 & 11: Sustained, as duplicative of the related requests for
admission discussed above.
Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8 & 9: Overruled.
The parties shall confer and attempt to agree on the language to be used when
introducing the discovery responses to the jury, such as whether to incorporate
the related requests for admission or whether to otherwise edit the
interrogatories.

Defendants’ Supplemental Objection to Plaintiff’s Exhibit List (Redacted
Expert Report). ECF No. 106. Sustained. The Court will not admit the
redacted written report of Plaintiff’s expert unless Plaintiff can lay a proper
foundation for an exception to the hearsay rule and demonstrate that the report is
not cumulative.
Regarding the expert’s testimony and Defendants’ objection thereto (ECF No.
95), Plaintiff is reminded of the Court’s prior ruling (ECF No. 76), which
precludes the expert from opining as to legal conclusions or invoking legal terms
of art. While the expert may testify regarding Plaintiff’s communication abilities
and interpretation needs in general, and about the difficulties Plaintiff would
have had in communicating during her stay using lipreading and written or
spoken English as compared to ASL, the expert may not go so far as to testify
that Plaintiff needed an ASL interpreter or that Plaintiff’s lipreading or
written/spoken English skills were insufficient to meet her communication needs
in this context.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in order to better accommodate the ASL
interpreters in this case, the trial will be held in Courtroom 3N.

________________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 21st day of November, 2017.

-2-