Glenn v. Washington County et al

Filing 195

ORDER. Signed on 8/10/2012 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (mjp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

HOPE GLENN
No. 3:08-cv-00950-MO
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
The charts on the following pages provide my rulings on the written objections to witness
statements and exhibit lists from the parties [150] [151] [159]:

1 –ORDER

Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendants’ Witness Statements [151]
Witness(s) Objected To
Ruling
Overruled. This ruling and all other rulings on these
objections are conditioned on my order, stated on the
Deputy Mikhail Gerba
record, that defendants provide a detailed witness
statement for all witnesses not deposed, and do so by
August 13, 2012.
Deputy Timothy Mateski
Overruled
Jim Clarke
Overruled; see ruling on plaintiff’s motion in limine #1.
Andrew Pastore
Overruled
Joe Yazzolino
Overruled
Jim Rue
Overruled
Detective Rich Musser
Overruled
Peter Richter and Peter Haslet
Overruled
Troy Spisla and Don Frank
Overruled
Elizabeth Wessinger
Overruled
Larry Lewman
Overruled
Rob Gordon
Overruled
Patrick Brady
Overruled
Sustained as to Greg Stutchman and otherwise
Experts who have not had their reports
overruled; see ruling on defendants’ motion for leave to
filed
file expert reports.
Sustained in part; see ruling on plaintiff’s motion in
John Black
limine #5.

Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s Exhibits [159]
Exhibit(s) Objected To
Ruling
16,17
Overruled as moot
49
Ruling deferred; see ruling on defendants’ motion in limine #7
Overruled as moot with respect to Exhibit 60. Overruled as to
55, 58, 60, 76, 77, 78
Exhibit 58. Sustained as to Exhibits 55, 76, 77, 78. See ruling
on defendants’ motion in limine #7
66
Overruled
68
Overruled
92-95
Overruled
99
Overruled
102
Overruled
114-126
Sustained
127
Sustained
128
Overruled
Overruled, with the condition that proper foundation must be put
130-145
forth at trial as to Exhibit 145.
Sustained, with the condition that proper foundation must be put
146
forth at trial.

2 –ORDER

Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendants’ Exhibits [150]
(Renumbered) Exhibit(s)
Ruling
Objected To
501, 577–580
Overruled
Overruled in part and sustained in part, per ruling on plaintiff’s
504, 505, 508, 530–534
motion in limine #1.
Overruled in part and sustained in part with respect to Exhibit
509, 510
509, and overruled with leave to renew as to Exhibit 510, as
stated on the record.
Overruled as moot with respect to 512, 513, and 543. Overruled
512, 513, 543, 506
as to Exhibit 506, with the condition that proper foundation be
put forth at trial.
540, 541
Sustained
Sustained as to Exhibits 543, 575. Overruled as moot as to
542, 543, 575
Exhibit 542
544
Sustained
522, 523, 525, 535, 536, 537,
Overruled, per ruling on plaintiff’s motion in limine #1.
538, 539, 565
520, 524, 527–529
Overruled

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

10th

day of August, 2012.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman
.
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Court

3 –ORDER