IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
February 1, 2010
PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas N. O'neill, Jr., J.
AND NOW, this 1st day of February 2010, upon consideration of defendant Philadelphia Parking Authority's motions in limine, plaintiff Marie Cange's responses thereto and defendant's reply; plaintiff's motion in limine and defendant's response thereto; and plaintiff's motion to compel and defendant's response, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to respond to requests for production of videos is DENIED;
2. Defendant's motion to exclude evidence of purported discrimination is DENIED with respect to Elias Cange and Patrick Jacques and GRANTED with respect to Marise Pierre;
3. Plaintiff's motion to exclude evidence of Carinn Irvin-Dockery, Ruth Wilder, Terri Hawkins, Ronald Alexander and Rosalyn Rodriquez is DENIED;
4. Defendant's motion to exclude evidence of work history and disciplinary records of certain employees is GRANTED with respect to Rodriquez, Tammi Matthews and Lisa Fisher and DENIED with respect to Kim Earland and James Aria;
5. Defendant's motion to exclude evidence relating to defendant's requirement of proof of citizenship/permanent residence and plaintiff's rebuttal witness is DENIED with respect to excluding all evidence related to plaintiff's hiring by defendant in November 2004, including the October 25, 2004 letter, and GRANTED with respect to precluding plaintiff from introducing the testimony of her rebuttal witness;
6. Defendant's motion to exclude evidence of plaintiff's purported status as a union shop steward is GRANTED;
7. Defendant's motion to exclude testimony by plaintiff regarding her purported economic damages in the nature of front pay and lost pension benefits is HELD IN ABEYANCE. Counsel for the parties are ORDERED to inform me on or before Thursday February 4, 2010 if there is an agreement with respect to whether the evidence of front pay and back pay will be presented to an advisory jury;
8. Plaintiff's motion to exclude the DVD of her shift on September 12, 2006 is DENIED;
9. Plaintiff's motion to exclude evidence concerning PHRC's letter of no probable cause and EEOC dismissal/notice of right to sue is MOOT because defendant agrees that it will not attempt to introduce this evidence; and
10. Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Andrew Verzilli is DENIED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.