SULLIVAN v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY

Filing 42

ORDER THAT PLFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE FROM TRIAL INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY IS GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 2/19/14. 2/19/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DANIEL SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
NO. 11-7305
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
Defendant
ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of February, 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion in
Limine to Exclude from Trial Inadmissible Hearsay (Document No. 36, filed July 16, 2013),
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Alleged Hearsay (Document
No. 39, filed August 1, 2013), Temple University’s Statement of Material Facts (Document No.
12, filed August 13, 2012), and Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed
Facts and Counterstatement of Facts Precluding the Entry of Summary Judgment (Document No.
13, filed November 5, 2012), IT IS ORDERED, for the reasons stated in the accompanying
Memorandum dated February 19, 2014, that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Exclude from Trial
Inadmissible Hearsay is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1.

That part of plaintiff’s Motion in Limine seeking to exclude (1) the notes of hiring

committee members taken during the interviews of candidates other than plaintiff, and (2) the
summary of the interviews prepared by the fourth committee member, is GRANTED; and
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine is DENIED in all other respects; specifically, (1) the

recommendation of the hiring committee is admissible in evidence at trial subject to the proviso
that defendant show at trial that Dean Amid Ismail relied on the committee’s recommendation in
deciding not to hire plaintiff in favor of Alexia Clarke, and (2) the notes of the hiring committee
taken during plaintiff’s interview are admissible in evidence at trial subject to the proviso that

defendant show at trial that the statements sought to be offered in evidence are a recitation of
plaintiff’s answers, that the committee member personally witnessed the plaintiff’s answers, and
that the notes were written contemporaneously with the interview.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s ruling is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to
the parties’ right to seek reconsideration if warranted by the evidence at trial and applicable law.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

2