MARTIN v. CITY OF READING et al

Filing 135

ORDER AS FOLLOWS:1. DEFENDANT ERRINGTONS MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS EXPERT, KATHLEEN MURRAY, R.N., ECF NO. 89, IS DENIED.2. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS EXPERT, MARK KROLL, ECF NO. 94, IS DENIED.3. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDA NTS FROM OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE OF MR. MARTINS CRIMINAL BACKGROUND OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEACH PLAINTIFFS TESTIMONY WITH EVIDENCE OF HIS PRIOR CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, ECF NO. 100, IS DENIED.4. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM OFFERING ANY EVID ENCE AT TRIAL REGARDING THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED BEFORE PLAINTIFF REACHED THE WEST SHORE BYPASS BRIDGE, ECF NO. 101, IS DENIED.25. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE AT TRIAL OR MAKING ANY REFERENCE TO ALLEGED DRUG PA RAPHERNALIA FOUND AT THE SCENE, ECF NO. 102, IS GRANTED.6. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM PRESENTING ANY EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY FROM GLADYS PAINTER OR BARBARA ANN FAIR AT TRIAL, ECF NO. 103, IS DENIED.37. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE A LL DEFENDANTS FROM OFFERING INTO EVIDENCE THE INTEGRATED CASE SUMMARY 13A PAROLE SUMMARY, ECF NO. 104, IS DENIED.8. NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2015, AT 12:00 P.M., EACH PARTY SHALL FILE A BRIEF MEMORANDUM OF LAW ADDRESSING (I) THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATION INTO THE EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THIS ACTION, AND (II) WHETHER BIFURCATION OF THE TRIAL OF THIS MATTER IS APPROPRIATE.9. NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2015, AT 12:00 P.M., EACH PARTY SHAL L FILE, IF NOT ALREADY FILED, REVISED PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, WHICH SHALL QUOTE OR CITE, AS APPLICABLE, MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS OR CASE CITATIONS. WITH RESPECT TO ANY PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION THAT QUOTES FROM A MODEL JURY INSTRUCTION, SUCH PROPO SED JURY INSTRUCTION SHALL BE MARKED TO SHOW DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION AND THE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTION.10. NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2015, AT 12:00 P.M., EACH PARTY SHALL FILE, IF NOT ALREADY FILED, PROPOSED SPECIAL INTER ROGATORIES. SPECIFICALLY, THE PROPOSED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SHALL ADDRESS ANY FINDINGS OF FACT NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE COURT TO RESOLVE ANY QUESTIONS OF LAW WITH RESPECT TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. SEE CURLEY V. KLEM, 499 F.3D 199, 209-11 (3D CIR. 2007 ) (RECOGNIZING THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER AN OFFICER MADE A REASONABLE MISTAKE OF LAW AND IS THUS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IS A QUESTION OF LAW THAT IS PROPERLY ANSWERED BY THE COURT, NOT A JURY, AND SUGGESTING THE USE OF SPECIAL INTERROGATOR IES TO ALLOW THE JURY TO DETERMINE[] DISPUTED HISTORICAL FACTS MATERIAL TO THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY QUESTION (QUOTING CARSWELL V. BOROUGH OF HOMESTEAD, 381 F.3D 235, 242 (3D CIR. 2004))).11. PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST OF PLAINTIFF DURING THE FINAL PRETRIA L CONFERENCE HELD ON AUGUST 5, 2015, AND LACK OF ANY OBJECTION FROM DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOHN DOE-1 THROUGH JOHN DOE-9 ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 8/7/2015. 8/7/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA __________________________________________ ERNEST MARTIN, : : Plaintiff, : v. : : CITY OF READING; READING POLICE : DEPARTMENT; WILLIAM HEIM, Chief of : Police of the Reading Police, individually and : in his official capacity; OFFICER BRIAN : ERRINGTON, individually and in his official : capacity; CAPTAIN DAMON 1 KLOC, : individually and in his official capacity; : PA STATE TROOOPER MICHAEL : PAVELKO; JOHN DOES 1-9, : : Defendants. : __________________________________________ No. 5:12-cv-03665 ORDER AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2015, upon consideration of the parties’ pretrial motions and following a final pretrial conference held via telephone on Wednesday, August 5, 2015, at 4:30 p.m., IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant Errington’s Motion to Preclude Plaintiff’s Expert, Kathleen Murray, R.N., ECF No. 89, is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants’ Expert, Mark Kroll, ECF No. 94, is DENIED. 1 Plaintiff’s initial Complaint and Amended Complaint specified this Defendant’s name as “Damon Kloc,” but the correct spelling of his first name appears to be “Damond.” See, e.g., Reading Defs.’ Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 1, ECF No. 87-2. 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants from Offering Any Evidence of Mr. Martin’s Criminal Background or Attempting to Impeach Plaintiff’s Testimony with Evidence of His Prior Criminal Convictions, ECF No. 100, is DENIED. 4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants from Offering Any Evidence at Trial Regarding the Events that Occurred before Plaintiff Reached the West Shore Bypass Bridge, ECF No. 101, is DENIED. 2 5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants from Offering Any Evidence at Trial or Making Any Reference to Alleged Drug Paraphernalia Found at the Scene, ECF No. 102, is GRANTED. 6. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants from Presenting Any Evidence or Testimony from Gladys Painter or Barbara Ann Fair at Trial, ECF No. 103, is DENIED. 3 7. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude All Defendants from Offering into Evidence the “Integrated Case Summary – 13A Parole Summary”, ECF No. 104, is DENIED. 8. No later than Friday, August 7, 2015, at 12:00 p.m., each party shall file a brief memorandum of law addressing (i) the admissibility of evidence regarding the conduct of the police investigation into the events giving rise to this action, and (ii) whether bifurcation of the trial of this matter is appropriate. 9. No later than Friday, August 7, 2015, at 12:00 p.m., each party shall file, if not already filed, revised proposed jury instructions, which shall quote or cite, as applicable, model jury instructions or case citations. With respect to any proposed jury instruction that quotes from 2 As set forth in the Court’s accompanying memorandum opinion, the Court’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s Motion at this time does not prevent Plaintiff from raising an objection to the introduction of this evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403 at trial, if appropriate. 3 As with Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Defendants from Offering Any Evidence at Trial Regarding the Events that Occurred before Plaintiff Reached the West Shore Bypass Bridge, Plaintiff may, if appropriate, raise an objection to the introduction of this evidence at trial pursuant to Rule 403. a model jury instruction, such proposed jury instruction shall be marked to show differences between the proposed jury instruction and the model jury instruction. 10. No later than Friday, August 7, 2015, at 12:00 p.m., each party shall file, if not already filed, proposed special interrogatories. Specifically, the proposed special interrogatories shall address any findings of fact necessary to enable the Court to resolve any questions of law with respect to qualified immunity. See Curley v. Klem, 499 F.3d 199, 209-11 (3d Cir. 2007) (recognizing that the question of “whether an officer made a reasonable mistake of law and is thus entitled to qualified immunity is a question of law that is properly answered by the court, not a jury,” and suggesting the use of special interrogatories to allow the jury to “determine[] disputed historical facts material to the qualified immunity question” (quoting Carswell v. Borough of Homestead, 381 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2004))). 11. Pursuant to the request of Plaintiff during the final pretrial conference held on August 5, 2015, and lack of any objection from Defendant, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants John Doe-1 through John Doe-9 are DISMISSED with prejudice. BY THE COURT: /s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.____________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District 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?