BOYER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

Filing 117

ORDER THAT DEFTS CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, CHARLES RAMSEY, ROLAND LEE, & KARYN BALDINI'S MOTION IN LIMINE IS GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART, ETC. THE RULINGS IN THIS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 9/5/18. 9/6/18 ENTERED AND COPIESE-MAILED AND MAILED TO PRO SE PLFF.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANDRE BOYER,

CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff,

v.
THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
COMMISSIONER CHARLES RAMSEY,
TWO JANE OR JOHN DOES,
CAPTAIN ROLLIN LEE,
LIEUTENANT KARYN BALDINI, and
OFFICER ANGEL ORTIZ,
Defendants.

NO. 13-6495

ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2018, upon consideration of Defendants City of
Philadelphia, Charles Ramsey, Roland Lee, and Karyn Baldini’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Document No. 90, filed Oct. 13, 2017), and Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants the City of
Philadelphia, Charles Ramsey, Roland Lee, and Karyn Baldini’s Motion in Limine (Document
No. 114, filed Aug. 14, 2018), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum dated
September 5, 2018, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

Defendants City of Philadelphia, Charles Ramsey, Roland Lee, and Karyn

Baldini’s Motion in Limine is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:
a. That part of the defendants’ motion seeking to exclude plaintiff’s vocational
report prepared by Sonya Mocarski is GRANTED.
b. That part of defendants’ motion seeking to exclude the testimony of Sonya
Mocarski is DENIED, as limited by the attached Memorandum.
c. That part of defendants’ motion seeking to exclude evidence relating to Plaintiff’s
previous lawsuit, subsequent settlement agreement, and any allegations of

retaliation by the defendants is GRANTED. To the extent that plaintiff believes
that such evidence is relevant to his remaining claims, he must seek
reconsideration of this Order before referring to the evidence at trial in the
presence of the jury.
d. That part of defendants’ motion seeking to exclude evidence related to James
Singleton’s arrest is GRANTED. To the extent that plaintiff believes that such
evidence is relevant to his remaining claims, he must seek reconsideration of this
Order before referring to the evidence at trial in the presence of the jury.
e. That part of defendants’ motion seeking to exclude the plaintiff’s commendations
or awards is GRANTED. This ruling is without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to
seek reconsideration of this part of the Order if defendants attack plaintiff’s
credibility or truthfulness at trial and plaintiff establishes that the commendations
or awards are evidence of his credibility or truthfulness.
f. That part of defendants’ motion seeking to exclude evidence regarding plaintiff’s
religious affiliation and position in his church is GRANTED.
g. A ruling on that part of defendants’ motion seeking to exclude evidence of
Captain McCloskey as a comparator is DEFERRED until trial.
h. That part of defendants’ motion seeking to exclude evidence of Detective Rossiter
as a comparator is GRANTED.
i. A ruling on that part of defendants’ motion seeking to exclude evidence of Jeffrey
Cujdik as a comparator is DEFERRED until trial.
j. A ruling on that part of plaintiff’s response seeking to include evidence of Angel
Ortiz as a comparator is DEFERRED until trial.

k. A ruling on that part of plaintiff’s response seeking to introduce “new evidence”
is DEFERRED until trial.
2. The rulings in this Memorandum and Order are WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the right of
the parties to seek reconsideration at trial if warranted by the evidence and the law as
stated in the attached Memorandum.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.