Professional Firefighters Association of Omaha et al v. City of Omaha et al

Filing 110

ORDER denying 99 Defendant City of Omaha'a Motion in Limine as set forth herein. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (SMS, )

Professional Firefighters Association of Omaha et al v. City of Omaha et al

Doc. 110

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF OMAHA, LOCAL 385, et al., Plaintiffs, RICK BERGHOLZ, et al., Intervenor Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF OMAHA, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

8:10CV198

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the defendant City of Omaha's motion in limine, Filing No. 99, to prohibit the intervenors and their counsel from participating in the trial in this case. The City of Omaha contends that the interests of the intervenors are fully represented by class representation. The intervenors disagree, arguing that they have distinct and separate legal and factual issues from the class. This court has previously held that the intervenors are allowed to participate at trial. Filing No. 56; Filing No. 66. at 5. Accordingly, the court is going to deny the motion in limine. However, the court will not permit the intervenors to duplicate any testimony, exhibits or evidence. The intervenors are only permitted to participate to the extent they have substantially different legal or factual issues that are not represented by the class.

Dockets.Justia.com

THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the City of Omaha's motion in limine, Filing No. 99, is denied as set forth herein. DATED this 25th day of August, 2010.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Chief United States District Judge

*This opinion m a y contain hyperlinks to other docum e n ts or W e b sites. The U.S. District Court for th e District of Nebraska does not endorse, recom m e n d , approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services o r products they provide on their W e b sites. Likewise, the court has no agreem e n ts with any of these third p a r tie s or their W e b sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any h yp e r lin k . Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to som e other site does not affect t h e opinion of the court. 2