Remsburg v. Docupak

Filing 93

PRETRIAL ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 52 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 59 Motion in Limine. Jury Selection and Jury Trial set for 7/30/2013 09:00 AM in Martinsburg District Judge Courtroom, 2nd Floor before District Judge Gina M. Groh. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 3/1/2013. (tlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG

DAVID REMSBERG,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-41
(JUDGE GROH)

DOCUPAK, a foreign corporation,
Defendant.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER
On March 1, 2013, the Court conducted a final pretrial conference in this matter.
Plaintiff appeared by counsel, David M. Hammer and Robert J. Schiavoni. Defendant
appeared by counsel, A. Neal Barkus and Keisha N. Jackson.
1.

Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Proposed Voir Dire
Plaintiff objected to Defendant’s Voir Dire Question No. 27. However, Defendant

WITHDREW the question.
2.

Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Proposed Voir Dire
Defendant filed multiple objections to Plaintiff’s Proposed Voir Dire. In regards to

Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Proposed Voir Dire, the following rulings were made:
(A) Plaintiff’s Question No. 4 was MODIFIED to include 167th in order to designate
the Air National Guard “base”;
(B) The Court OVERRULED Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s Question Nos. 6 and
8;
(C) The Court GRANTED Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s Question No. 5;

(D) Plaintiff WITHDREW Question No. 18 and Question. 21 in light of the
modification to Defendant’s Question No. 6. Defendant’s Question No. 6 was MODIFIED
to read: “Have any of you or any member of your family been self-employed or an
independent contractor?”;
(E) Plaintiff’s Question No. 7 was MODIFIED to read: “Do any of you have any
strong feelings for or against the Air National Guard in Martinsburg or its personnel?”;
(F) Plaintiff’s Question No. 25 was MODIFIED to read: “Has anyone ever had an
issue with regard to not being paid for the work they perform?”;
(G) Parties AGREED that any follow up questions to Plaintiff’s Question No. 28 will
be conducted at side bar.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
The Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s first and second motions in limine. The Court

DENIED Plaintiff’s third, fourth, and fifth motions in limine.
Plaintiff made an oral motion in limine to exclude the expert testimony of one of
Defendant’s witnesses. The Court ORDERED Plaintiff to file a written motion by March 22,
2013. Defendant has fourteen days to respond to Plaintiff’s motion once it is filed.
4.

Defendant’s Motions in Limine
The Court GRANTED Defendant’s first and second motions in limine. The Court

RESERVED RULING on Defendant’s third motion in limine. The Court DENIED
Defendant’s fourth motion in limine as premature speculation and granted Plaintiff leave to
raise the issue at a later time.

2

4.

Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures
The Court RESERVED RULING on Defendant’s first objection regarding Plaintiff’s

witnesses numbered 15-40 on Plaintiff’s 26(a)(3) disclosures.
In addressing Defendant’s second objection to Plaintiff’s 26(a)(3) disclosures
regarding witnesses 3-7 and 9-14, the parties agreed that the witnesses would only be
called in rebuttal.
The Court GRANTED Defendant’s third objection to Plaintiff’s 26(a)(3) disclosures
listing Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Neal Barkus, as a potential witness.
The Court RESERVED RULING on Defendant’s fourth objection unless and until the
witness, Sergeant Jeremy Miller, becomes unavailable.
Defendant WITHDREW his objection in regards to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2.
The Court RESERVED RULING on Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3.
The Court GRANTED Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5, but also granted
Plaintiff leave to raise the issue again at trial if Defendant opens the door.
The Court DENIED AS MOOT Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 in light
of the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s first motion in limine.
The Court GRANTED Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 as the witness,
Master Sergeant Jeremy Miller, is testifying live at trial.
The Court GRANTED Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8 in light of the
Court’s ruling on the Defendant’s first motion in limine.
Also, the Court ORDERED the parties to work out the issue regarding the use of
David Stewart’s deposition testimony, whether it would be introduced in its entirety or in

3

sections.
Defendant WITHDREW exhibits 53 and 56 on its exhibit list. Plaintiff sought leave
to amend his exhibit list to include letters from L. Jansen. Defendant did not object as the
exhibits were already included in Defendant’s exhibit list.

Accordingly, the Court

GRANTED Plaintiff’s motion to amend his exhibit list.
Any objections with regard to proposed jury instructions and/or verdict sheets will
be considered after the close of evidence.
Last, in light of the conflicting criminal trial, the Court CONTINUED the trial to July
30, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in the Martinsburg District Judge Courtroom.
There being no further business, the Court ADJOURNED until Trial.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record and/or
pro se parties.
DATED: March 1, 2013

4