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
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?