United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANUM ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE
CONCERNING PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL EXHIBITS AND AMENDED TRIAL
WITNESS LIST (DOC. NOS. 187 AND 189)
J. Schwab United States District Judge.
before the Court are Defendants' Motion in Limine
Concerning Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits, doc. no.
187, and Defendants' Motion in Limine Concerning
Plaintiff's Amended Trial Witness List, doc. no.
189. The Court has considered Defendants' Motions,
responses provided by the Plaintiff at the Pretrial
Conference on June 29, 2017 at 9:00 AM, and the oral
arguments of the Parties.
Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits
object to two categories of exhibits: “(1) those
exhibits dealing with claims that have already been dismissed
from this case; and (2) those exhibits dealing with alleged
spoliation of documents.” Doc. No. 187. The
Court finds that the following exhibits or portions of
exhibits concern claims that have previously been dismissed
from this lawsuit, and Defendants' objections to these
documents will be sustained because the exhibits are
irrelevant to the claims and issues remaining in this
• Exhibit 2, which concerns the previously dismissed
claim that Plaintiff was not seen quickly enough by the
Program Review Committee (PRC) (see Doc. No. 127);
• Pages 10-16 of Exhibit 3, concerning the PRC;
• Exhibit 4, which concerns the previously dismissed
claim that Plaintiff was denied a promotional transfer (see
Doc. No. 171); and
• Exhibit 5, which concerns the previously dismissed
claim regarding copies of Plaintiff s legal materials being
allegedly destroyed (see Doc. No. 171).
objection to Exhibit 6 page 27 is overruled. Defendants claim
that this document is only relevant to the previously
dismissed claim regarding Plaintiffs placement in the
restricted housing unit in February 2014. However, the
document is a “Legal Mail Tracking Sheet” and
nothing about the document ties it to that particular claim.
also object to Plaintiffs Exhibit 0 - - which is several
documents related to Plaintiffs request for spoliation
sanctions concerning a box of his legal materials that went
missing. The Court has previously found that all of Plaintiff
s requests for spoliation sanctions have been either denied
or adequately addressed by previous court orders during the
lengthy litigation of this case. See Doc. Nos. 200, 182, and
163. Accordingly, the Court finds that these exhibits are
irrelevant and sustains Defendants' objection.
Parties shall file a revised Joint Exhibit List on ECF in
accordance with these rulings, and Defendants shall deliver
copies of the exhibits in three (3) binders (one each for the
Court, Court Reporter, and the Jury) to Chambers by
Wednesday, July 12 at 12:00 PM (noon).
Plaintiffs Amended Trial Witness List
has set forth an Amended Witness List which includes 27
proposed trial witnesses in addition to the six (6)
Defendants, but very little information regarding the
expected testimony of each witness. Defendants object to 24
of the proposed witnesses. At the June 29, 2017 pretrial
conference, the Court worked through the proposed testimony
of, and the objections to, each witness with the Parties and
makes the following rulings:
proposes calling Major Ennis to testify about Plaintiff's
grievance regarding the alleged delayed return of a loaner
television to him. In Defendants' Motion, they state that
Ennis is mentioned in the response to Plaintiff's
grievance, i.e., “when confirmation was
received from Major Ennis of your loaner approval, Lt.
Haggerty called you up . . .[.]” Doc. No. 189.
The Court finds that Major Ennis's testimony regarding
Plaintiff's approval to have a loaner television and the
subsequent events that resulted in the “withholding
[of] a loaner TV for two months” as Defendants
describe, id., is relevant to Plaintiff's claim
of retaliation. Defendants' objection to this witness is
proposes calling Capt. Mohrey to testify about his
investigation of a grievance regarding a pair of
Plaintiff's boots that were confiscated. The Court agrees
with Defendants that this testimony would be cumulative to
other evidence. Defendants' objection to this witness is
proposes calling Officer Sible to testify about grievances
concerning his lost property. In at least one grievance
response, Sible describes how he and Defendant Gilara handled
the inventory of Plaintiff's property. The Court finds
that this testimony is relevant to Plaintiff's claims and
OVERRULES Defendants' objection to this witness.
did not include Officer Gotto on his Amended Witness List,
however, he stated at the June 29th pretrial conference that
this was an oversight and that Officer Gotto can provide
testimony relevant to his claim that his loaner television
was withheld for more than two months in retaliation against
him for filing grievances and lawsuits. The Court OVERRULES
Defendants' objection to this witness.
proposes calling Supt. Overmyer to testify about his
grievances and his denial of promotional transfer claim,
which has been dismissed. SeeDoc. No. 171. Supt.
Overmyer has no direct personal knowledge regarding the facts
related to the grievances (or claims in this lawsuit), and
his testimony would be inadmissible hearsay. Defendants'
objection to this witness is SUSTAINED.
Gustafson - - no ...