J.L. et al v. LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT

Filing 188

ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF DR. WILLIAM YOUNG AND DR. MARY STEPHENS TO OPINE ON THE EFFICACY OF THE LETTERBOARD AND COMMUNICATION PARTNER AS A COMMUNICATION METHOD FOR ALEX IS SUSTAINED. THE DIST RICT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON DELIBRATE INDIFFERENCE ARE ADOPTED AND PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON DELIBERATE INDIFFEENCE ARE REJECTED. SIGNED BY DISTRICT JUDGE KAREN S. MARSTON ON 1/6/25. 1/6/25 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (mbh)

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

J.L., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

NO. 20-1416-KSM

v.
LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant.

ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2025, upon consideration of the District’s
objections to certain of Plaintiffs’ anticipated expert witnesses (Doc. Nos. 156, 169) and
Plaintiffs’ response thereto (Doc. No. 167), and the parties’ proposed jury instructions and
relevant arguments (Doc. Nos. 151, 153, 155, 179), and for the reasons set forth in the
accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

The District’s objections to the adequacy of the qualifications of Dr. William

Young and Dr. Mary Stephens to opine on the efficacy of the letterboard and communication
partner as a communication method for Alex (Doc. Nos. 156, 169) are SUSTAINED.
2.

The Court reserves ruling on the District’s objection to the adequacy of the

qualifications of Vanessa von Hagen to opine on the efficacy of the letterboard and
communication partner as a communication method for Alex (Doc. Nos. 156, 169).

3.

The District’s proposed jury instructions on deliberate indifference (Doc. No.

155) are ADOPTED, 1 and Plaintiffs’ proposed jury instructions on deliberate indifference (Doc.
Nos. 151, 153; see Doc. No. 179) are REJECTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Karen Spencer Marston
_____________________________
KAREN SPENCER MARSTON, J.

While the Court intends to instruct the jury that Plaintiffs must prove deliberate indifference in
order to prevail on their ADA and Section 504 claims, the Court advises that the Court may not adopt the
District’s proposed jury instructions on deliberate indifference verbatim.
1