Collins v. Bledsoe et al
Filing
253
ORDER granting in part and denying in part defts' MIL 230 - both parties are precluded from discussing, referencing, or introducing evidence re: the 5/4/11 cell-extraction events or any documentary or video evidence re: thereto. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 10/2/19. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LARRY JOE COLLINS,
Plaintiff
v.
WARDEN B. A. BLEDSOE, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-2244
(Chief Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2019, upon consideration of defendants’
motion (Doc. 230) in limine, wherein defendants seek exclusion of all evidence
related to plaintiff’s cell extraction on May 4, 2011, except as to a particular “Fifteen
Minute Restraints Check Form” from that date, and the court noting that plaintiff’s
excessive-force claims related to the May 4, 2011 cell extraction have been resolved
at the Rule 56 stage in defendants’ favor, (see Doc. 186 at 3; Doc. 180 at 13-15), and
that those events are largely unrelated to the May 3, 2011 allegations of excessive
force that remain pending for trial, and the court thus finding that the May 4, 2011
events have little relevance or probative value with respect to the surviving claims,
see generally FED. R. EVID. 401, and the court further concluding that the “Fifteen
Minute Restraints Check Form” is equally irrelevant to the pending May 3, 2011
excessive-force claims, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.
Defendants’ motion (Doc. 230) in limine is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
2.
Both parties are PRECLUDED from discussing, referencing, or
introducing evidence related to the May 4, 2011 cell-extraction events
or any documentary or video evidence related thereto.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?