THOMPSON et al v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

Filing 31

ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION IN LIMINE (DOC #25) IS GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PLFFS TO RAISE THIS ISSUE AT TRIAL IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE APPROPRIATE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFTS' MOTION IN LIMINE IS GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PLFFS TO RAISE THIS ISSUE AT TRIAL IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE APPROPRIATE, ETC. ( SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. FELIPE RESTREPO ON 8/25/09. ) 8/26/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(gn, )

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

Albertine Thompson, as Parent and Legal Guardian of Marc Eldemire, and Aislinn McQueen, as Parent and Legal Guardian of Anthony and NaJame McQueen, Plaintiffs,

: : : : : : : v. : : Stephen Mancuso, Robert Donnelly, and : Zachary Kuzowsky, : Defendants. : ORDER

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 08-3638

AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2009, having considered the Motion in limine and supporting Memorandum of Law of Defendants seeking to preclude the admission of any evidence or argument concerning prior Internal Affairs Division investigations or other police misconduct on their part (Doc. No. 18), and the Memorandum of Law in response thereto of Plaintiffs Albertine Thompson (as parent and guardian of Plaintiff Marc Eldemire) and Aislinn McQueen (as parent and guardian of Plaintiffs Anthony and NaJame McQueen) (Doc. No. 22), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in limine is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiffs to raise this issue at trial if the circumstances are appropriate. Additionally, having considered Defendants' second Motion in limine and supporting Memorandum of Law seeking to preclude the admission of evidence or argument relating to a videotape broadcast on the FOX 29 television channel (Doc. No. 25) and Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in response thereto (Doc. No. 26), it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in limine is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiffs to raise

this issue at trial if the circumstances are appropriate. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are permitted to question Defendants about any prior dishonest acts should they testify at trial, but extrinsic evidence of such acts is not admissible. BY THE COURT:

/s/ L. Felipe Restrepo L. Felipe Restrepo United States Magistrate Judge

2