Young et al v. Pleasant Valley School District et al

Filing 627

ORDER (MEMORANDUM filed previously as separate docket entry): Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendant from Claiming that This Case Should Have Resolved on the School Steps and Not in a Courtroom, It's All about Money and/or Atto rney [sic] Fees, ECF No. 556, is DENIED. Defendant's First Motion in Limine to Exclude Documents and Images that Plaintiff Never Saw, ECF No. 558, is GRANTED. Defendant's Second Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Retaliation, ECF No. 5 60, is GRANTED. Defendant's Third Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Educational Harm, ECF No. 562, is DENIED. Defendant's Fourth Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Witnesses Polanzke, Pedone, Serfass, and Ke ller, ECF No. 564, is GRANTED. Defendant's Fifth Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to the First Verdict, ECF No. 566, is GRANTED.Defendant's Sixth Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence that Plaintiff Was Harassed or Threatened outside of the Educational Environment, ECF No. 568, is GRANTED. Defendant's Seventh Motion in Limine to Exclude from Evidence Defendants Stray Comments and the Manson and Gein Photographs, or Alternatively, to Limit Their Exposure, ECF No. 570, is DENIED . Defendant's Eighth Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Former School Board President Susan Kresge, ECF No. 572, is GRANTED. Defendant's Ninth Motion in Limine to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., ECF N o. 574, is GRANTED.Defendant's Tenth Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of William and Patricia Young, ECF No. 576, is GRANTED.Plaintiff is barred from seeking additional discovery or presenting any evidence as to punitive damages, and th e jury will not be charged with a punitive damages instruction, because this Court has already determined, as a matter of law, that punitive damages are inappropriate as to this Defendant.Plaintiffs Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction, ECF No. 607, is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 6/28/16. (km)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEAGAN YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. BRUCE H. SMITH, JR., Defendant. : : : : : : : : : No. 3:07-cv-00854 (Judge Brann) ORDER AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 2016, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendant from Claiming that This Case Should Have Resolved on the School Steps and Not in a Courtroom, It’s All about Money and/or Attorney [sic] Fees, ECF No. 556, is DENIED. 2. Defendant’s First Motion in Limine to Exclude Documents and Images that Plaintiff Never Saw, ECF No. 558, is GRANTED. -1- 3. Defendant’s Second Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Retaliation, ECF No. 560, is GRANTED. 4. Defendant’s Third Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Educational Harm, ECF No. 562, is DENIED. 5. Defendant’s Fourth Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff’s Witnesses Polanzke, Pedone, Serfass, and Keller, ECF No. 564, is GRANTED. 6. Defendant’s Fifth Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference to the First Verdict, ECF No. 566, is GRANTED. 7. Defendant’s Sixth Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence that Plaintiff Was Harassed or Threatened outside of the Educational Environment, ECF No. 568, is GRANTED. 8. Defendant’s Seventh Motion in Limine to Exclude from Evidence Defendant’s Stray Comments and the Manson and Gein Photographs, or Alternatively, to Limit Their Exposure, ECF No. 570, is DENIED. -2- 9. Defendant’s Eighth Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Former School Board President Susan Kresge, ECF No. 572, is GRANTED. 10. Defendant’s Ninth Motion in Limine to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., ECF No. 574, is GRANTED. 11. Defendant’s Tenth Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of William and Patricia Young, ECF No. 576, is GRANTED. 12. Plaintiff is barred from seeking additional discovery or presenting any evidence as to punitive damages, and the jury will not be charged with a punitive damages instruction, because this Court has already determined, as a matter of law, that punitive damages are inappropriate as to this Defendant. 13. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction, ECF No. 607, is DENIED. -3- BY THE COURT: s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge -4-

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?