ZAENGLE v. ROSEMONT, INC.

Filing 92

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE AT DOC. NO. 66 IS GRANTED. DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE AT DOC. NO. 67 IS DENIED AS MOOT; DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE AT DOC. NO. 68 IS GRANTED; DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE AT DOC. NO. 69 IS DENIED; DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE AT DOC. NO. 72 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE AT DOC. NO. 78 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE AT DOC. NO. 80 IS DENIED; AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE AT DOC. NO. 81 IS GRANTED AS UNOPPOSED. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE THOMAS J. RUETER ON 1/28/14. 1/28/14 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KATHRYN ZAENGLE
v.

:

CIVIL ACTION

:

ROSEMOUNT, INC. t/a EMERSON
PROCESS MANAGEMENT
ROSEMOUNT MEASUREMENT
DIVISION

:
:
NO. 08-2010

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of January, 2014, upon consideration of defendant’s
motions in limine, Doc. Nos. 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 78, 80 and 81, plaintiff’s responses thereto, and
after oral argument on January 14, 2014, and for the reasons and to the extent stated in the
accompanying Memorandum of Decision, it is hereby
ORDERED
1.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine at Document No. 66 is GRANTED;

2.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine at Document No. 67 is DENIED AS

3.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine at Document No. 68 is GRANTED;

4.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine at Document No. 69 is DENIED;

5.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine at Document No. 72 is GRANTED IN

MOOT;

PART and DENIED IN PART;
6.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine at Document No. 78 is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART;

7.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine at Document No. 80 is DENIED; and

8.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine at Document No. 81 is GRANTED AS

UNOPPOSED.

BY THE COURT:

_/s/ Thomas J. Rueter
THOMAS J. RUETER
United States Magistrate Judge