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.

Digiacomo v. Kennebec County

United States District Court, D. Maine

July 25, 2019

DIEDRE DIGIACOMO, Plaintiff,
v.
KENNEBEC COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

          George Z. Singal United States District Judge.

         Before the Court are three motions in limine: (1) Plaintiff's Motion in Limine & Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 47); (2) Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony & Documents of Alleged Motion as an Affirmative Defense (ECF No. 48); and (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Hearsay from Defendants' Potential Trial Exhibits (ECF No. 49).

         After initial review of these motions, the Court requested that counsel provide the proposed exhibits at issue for the Court's review. In response, Plaintiff provided the Court eight separate exhibits. (See ECF Nos. 61-1 through 61-8.) Defendants attached three exhibits to one response and an additional seven exhibits to another. (See ECF Nos. 59-1 through 59-3 & 60-1 through 60-7.) To clarify the evidentiary issues for trial, the Court first considers the legal arguments presented as to each presented exhibit and then discusses the remaining arguments in Plaintiff's Motions in Limine.

         I. The Exhibits

         As to each of the exhibits discussed in this section, counsel shall list each exhibit on the Consolidated Exhibit List and include a reference to the ruling made below (e.g., “sustained by 7/25/19 Order” or “denied without prejudice by 7/25/19 Order”).

         Statement of Officer Underwood, dated 7/20/14 (ECF Nos. 60-1 & 61-1)

         Plaintiff seeks exclusion of this document as hearsay. (See Pl. Mot. (ECF No. 49), PageID # 780.) Defendants respond that it “may be admissible” if they are able to lay a foundation for admission under F.R.E. 801(d)(2), 803(1), or 803(5). (Defs. Response (ECF No. 60), PageID # 1125.) On the available record, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's request for exclusion. This pretrial ruling is made without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing her objection should Defendants attempt to offer the exhibit at trial.

         Statement of Officer Willhoite, dated 7/20/14 (ECF Nos. 60-2 & 61-1)

         Plaintiff seeks exclusion of this document as hearsay. (See Pl. Mot. (ECF No. 49), PageID # 780.) Defendants respond that it “may be admissible” if it is able to lay a foundation for admission under F.R.E. 801(d)(2), 803(1), 803(5) or seeks to admit it for its “effect on the listener.” (Defs. Response (ECF No. 60), PageID # 1125.) On the available record, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's request for exclusion. This pretrial ruling is made without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing her objection should Defendants attempt to offer the exhibit at trial.

         Memo from Sgt. Keith LaChance to Ssgt. Black, dated 7/15/14 (ECF No. 60-3 & 61-2)

         Plaintiff seeks exclusion of this document as hearsay. (See Pl. Mot. (ECF No. 49), PageID # 781.) Defendants respond that it may be able to lay a foundation for admission under F.R.E. 801(d)(2), 803(1), or 803(5). (Defs. Response (ECF No. 60), PageID # 1125.) On the available record, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's request for exclusion. This pretrial ruling is made without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing her objection should Defendants attempt to offer the exhibit at trial.

         Lt. Campbell's Notes on Officer Imperial re: 7/29/14 & 7/30/14 (ECF No. 60-4 & 61-3)[1]

         The Court construes Plaintiff's Motion as stating a hearsay objection to this exhibit. (See Pl. Mot. (ECF No. 49), PageID #s 781-82.) Defendants respond that it may be able to lay a foundation for admission under F.R.E. 801(d)(2), 803(1), or 803(5). (Defs. Response (ECF No. 60), PageID # 1125.) On the available record, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's request for exclusion. This pretrial ruling is made without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing her objection should Defendants attempt to offer the exhibit at trial.

         Note created by Lt. Campbell on 7/30/15 regarding events of ...


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.