Dutton v. Ascend Learning Holdings, LLC et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion in Limine Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch on 1/26/2017. (TCL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
ASCEND LEARNING HOLDINGS,
LLC; ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES
INSTITUTE, LLC; and JOHN DOES AE,
Defendants Ascend Learning Holdings, LLC and Assessment Technologies
Institute, LLC (collectively “Ascend”) move in limine to preclude Plaintiff Tammy
Dutton from introducing evidence, presenting argument, or making inquiry during
jury voir dire with respect to three categories of information. Having considered
the parties’ respective arguments, the Court rules as follows:
Ascend’s Financial Condition
This aspect of Ascend’s motion is granted, subject to the exception that if
Dutton prevails in the initial phase of trial on her request for punitive damages she
may introduce evidence regarding Ascend’s financial condition as appropriate in
the second phase of trial on the issue of the proper award of punitive damage.
Ascend’s Corporate Domicile
This aspect of Ascend’s motion is denied to the extent Dutton may reference
Ascend’s domicile in the State of Kansas in order to provide background facts for
a thorough voir dire. But the motion is granted to the extent Dutton may not argue
Ascend’s domicile has any bearing on the issues presented for resolution.
Defense Counsel and His Firm’s Domicile
Again, Dutton may reference defense counsel and his firm’s domicile in
Denver, Colorado in order to provide background facts for a thorough voir dire.
Thus, this aspect of Ascend’s motion is denied. But the motion is granted to the
extend Dutton may not argue the domicile of defense counsel has any bearing on
the issues presented for resolution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 26th day of January, 2017.
Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?