IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 11, 2010
ELIZABETH PINEGAR, PLAINTIFF
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 11th day of March, 2010, upon consideration of defendant's motion in limine (Doc. 65), wherein defendant contends that evidence of plaintiff's wage loss after September 13, 2005 or October 12, 2005 should be barred as irrelevant, because plaintiff was not able to earn wages after those dates,*fn1 and upon further consideration of plaintiff's opposition (Doc. 67) to defendant's motion in limine, wherein plaintiff argues that the court should not prohibit her from offering evidence of her wage loss after the dates at issue,*fn2 and the court concluding that the evidence of record does not conclusively establish plaintiff's inability to earn wages after the dates at issue,*fn3 and the court further concluding that evidence relating to damages is relevant, as damages are an issue "of consequence to the determination of the action," FED. R. EVID. 401; see also Winters v. Marina Dist. Development Co., 317 F. App'x 286, 289 (3d Cir. 2009) (applying FED. R. EVID. 401 to evidence relating to causation and damages), it is hereby ORDERED that defendant's motion in limine (Doc. 65) is DENIED, without prejudice to defendant's right to object to evidence that defendant believes is irrelevant or otherwise improperly offered at trial.