Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

T.B. v. New Kensington-Arnold School District

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh.

July 5, 2017

T.B., A MINOR, BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND PARENT, T.B.; Plaintiff,
v.
NEW KENSINGTON-ARNOLD SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant,

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          Cynthia Reed Eddy United States Magistrate Judge.

         AND NOW, this 5th day of July, 2017, the following came before the court for consideration:

(1) Plaintiff's motion in limine to recognize witnesses as adverse and examine as if on cross examination [ECF No. 69];
(2) Plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude testimony or evidence of Plaintiff's mother's verbal altercation with teacher [ECF No. 70];
(3) Plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude video of bus stop incident and fight [ECF No. 71];
(4) Defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of alleged Facebook post [ECF No. 72];
(5) Defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence that contradicts guilty plea [ECF No. 74]; and
(6) Defendant's motion in limine to exclude testimony of Michele R. Konopisos [ECF No. 76].

         The motions are fully briefed and ripe for disposition. Each motion will be addressed seriatim.

         1. Plaintiff's motion in limine to recognize witnesses as adverse and examine as if on cross examination [ECF No. 69]

         Plaintiff's motion in limine to recognize witnesses as adverse and examine as if on cross examination is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion is unopposed. Plaintiff may call School District personnel in her case in chief and recognize such witnesses as adverse witnesses and use leading questions as if on cross-examination. The scope of the examinations shall be confined to the witnesses' knowledge of District policies and procedures concerning bullying and sexual harassment and their role in implementing and enforcing such policies and procedures. Defendant may examine these witnesses during Plaintiff's case in chief as if calling the witness during the Defendant's case in chief. Plaintiff may then re-direct the witness as if on cross-examination in Defendant's case in chief relating to the subject matter of the testimony developed by defense counsel on direct. Any further questioning will be subject to the undersigned's discretion at trial.

         2. Plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude testimony or evidence of Plaintiff's mother's verbal altercation with teacher [ECF No. 70]

         Plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude testimony or evidence of Plaintiff's mother's verbal altercation with teacher is GRANTED. Any testimony or evidence relating to the altercation between Ms. LaCava and Plaintiff's mother at the local convenience store is excluded as it is not probative of or relevant to proving or disproving any element of Plaintiff's alleged Title IX violation under Federal Rule of Evidence (“F.R.E”) 401 and 403. However, this order does not preclude any testimony or evidence relating to any parent-teacher conference between Plaintiff's mother and Ms. LaCava, as such evidence or testimony is relevant in determining whether the School District acted with deliberate indifference.

         3. Plaintiff's motion in limine to exclude video of bus stop ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.