IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
April 23, 2007
WILLIAM D. MORRIS, PLAINTIFF
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 23rd day of April, 2007, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion in limine (Doc. 62) seeking a ruling that neither of the Reports of Investigation ("ROI")*fn1 are admissible under Rule 803(8)(C) of the Federal Rules of Evidence,*fn2 and the order of court dated March 26, 2007 (Doc. 59) directing the parties to file briefs in opposition to any motions in limine by April 17, 2007 and advising that failure to do so would result in the motion being deemed unopposed, see L.R. 7.6, and it appearing that defendant has not filed a brief in opposition as of the date of this order, and the court finding that the circumstances surrounding the creation of the ROIs indicates a lack of trustworthiness,*fn3 see FED. R. EVID. 803(8)(C); id. advisory committee's note (setting forth the following non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in evaluating trustworthiness: "(1) the timeliness of the investigation, (2) the special skill or experience of the official, (3) whether a hearing was held and the level at which conducted, (4) possible motivation problems" (internal citations omitted)); see also Coleman v. Home Depot, Inc., 306 F.3d 1333, 1342 & n.4 (3d Cir. 2002),*fn4 it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The motion in limine (Doc. 62) is GRANTED.
2. Neither of the Reports of Investigation are admissible under Rule 803(8)(C) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court expresses no opinion on whether portions of these reports are admissible under other rules.