Doe v. Old Forge Borough et al
Filing
392
MEMORANDUM OPINION - For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Krenitisky's Omnibus Motion in Lirnine (Doc. 241) will be decided as set forth in this Memorandum Opinion. A separate Order follows.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 1/26/17. (jfg)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NASTASHA BURDYN
Plaintiff,
v.
3:12·CV·2236
(JUDGE MARIANI)
OLD FORGE BOROUGH, et al.
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently before the Court is Defendant James Krenitsky's Omnibus Motion in
Limine (Doc. 241) which requests that the Court:
1. Prohibit additional non-expert witnesses not previously identified by the Plaintiff;
2. Prohibit demonstrative evidence during opening statements;
3. Preclude Plaintiffs expert testimony beyond the four corners of their expert reports;
4. Preclude hearsay statements and/or evidence;
5. Preclude any reference to Krenitsky's family at the time of trial.
The Court will address each request in turn.
1. Prohibit additional non·expert witnesses not previously identified by the
Plaintiff
Krenitsky first asks that the Court "prohibit the Plaintiff from calling or referring in voir
dire, opening, witness examination, cross-examination, closing or at any other time in the
presence of the jury to any non-expert witness testifying other than those specifically listed
on the Plaintiffs witness list." (Doc. 243, at 5). In response, Plaintiff asserts that she does
"not intend to introduce witnesses not identified in discovery." (Doc. 305, at 2).
f
i
;
f
~
t
Defendant's motion is phrased in only the most general terms, and the Court cannot
make a determination as to the appropriateness of this motion without more information.
Defendant's motion in limine will therefore be denied without prejudice.
2. Prohibit demonstrative evidence during opening statements
Krenitsky next requests that the Court preclude the Plaintiff from using any
demonstrative exhibits during her opening statement. (Doc. 243, at 5-8). In response,
Plaintiff asserts that she does not intend to produce demonstrative evidence during opening
statements. (Doc. 305, at 2).
In light of Plaintiffs statement, the Court will grant Defendant's motion. However, as
a result and in fairness to Plaintiff, no party shall be permitted to produce demonstrative
evidence during opening statements without prior approval by the Court.
3. Preclude Plaintiff's expert testimony beyond the four corners of their expert
reports
Defendant also requests that the Court preclude any testimony or opinions by
Plaintiffs experts "beyond the four corners of their expert reports." (Doc. 243, at 8-10).
In response, Plaintiff affirms that she does "not intend to seek testimony from her experts
outside the four corners of their expert reports." (Doc. 305, at 2).
Defendant's motion in limine appears based at this point on the unfounded
assumption that something will be said by one or more of Plaintiffs experts outside the
scope of their reports. Krenitsky's request is apremature attempt to limit the testimony of
Plaintiffs experts, without evidence that these experts have any intention of offering
testimony outside of their disclosed reports. Defendant is requesting a ruling on adispute
2
l
which has yet to be presented to the Court in a posture where the disputed testimony is
before the Court and may be ruled upon after timely objection.
The Court therefore finds it necessary to defer ruling on this motion until trial and
until such time as an objection is raised by one or more Defendants on the basis that any
one of Plaintiffs designated experts is attempting to offer testimony outside the scope of the
report he or she issued.
4. Preclude hearsay statements and/or evidence
Once again using only the most general terms and without any specific support for
the proposition that Plaintiff intends to violate the Federal Rules of Evidence, Defendant
now requests that any and all hearsay statements which do not qualify for an appropriate
exception be precluded. (Doc. 243, at 10-11). The necessity of this motion is inexplicable
given that the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding the use of hearsay are well-established
and the Court trusts that all counsel are acutely aware of what constitutes hearsay,
exclusions from hearsay, and the exceptions to the rule against hearsay. (See Fed. R.
Evid. 801-807).
Thus, although the Court expects all parties to comply with the hearsay rules, the
Court cannot rule on hearsay issues that have yet to arise. The Court will defer ruling on
Defendant's motion until such time that counsel has a specific objection, premised on the
Federal Rules of Evidence, to a particular statement or document relating to a hearsay
statement.
3
I
1
5. Preclude any reference to Krenitsky's family at the time of trial
Finally, Krenitsky requests that Plaintiff be precluded from presenting evidence or
"inquiring into the status of [Krenitsky's] wife's pregnancy during the relevant timeframe in
this matter, the age and names of his daughters or any details regarding the status of his
family." (Doc. 243, at 11-14). In response, Plaintiff asserts that she "does not intend to
present evidence regarding the fact that Krenitsky's wife was pregnant while Krenitsky was
receiving and performing oral sex" on Plaintiff "or the existence, name and/or age of
Krenitsky's daughters" subject to reservation of her right to present rebuttal evidence if
necessary. (Doc. 305, at 3).
The Court will grant Krenitsky's motion. Evidence or testimony related to whether
Krenitsky's wife was pregnant at the time of his interactions with Plaintiff, as well as the
existence, names, and ages of his children, is completely irrelevant to any of the issues in
this case and, subject to Krenitsky opening the door at trial, all parties will be precluded from
referencing his children and his wife's pregnancy in 2005.
6. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Krenitisky's Omnibus Motion in Lirnine (Doc.
241) will be decided as set forth in this Memorandum Opinion. Aseparate Order follows.
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?