IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
August 31, 2012
LAWRENCE THOMAS, PLAINTIFF,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jerome B. Simandle Chief U.S. District Judge
This matter having come before the Court on motions in limine filed by Plaintiff [Docket Item 140] and by Defendant [Docket Items 141-143 & 145]; for the reasons stated in the Opinion of today's date; and for good cause shown;
IT IS this 30th day of August , 2012 hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion [Docket Item 140] in limine will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; the motion is GRANTED as to the following: Defendant will be barred from introducing evidence of Plaintiff's history of drug addiction and methadone treatment, his prior criminal and incarceration history, and Defendant will also be barred from introducing the expert report or expert opinion testimony from Defendant's liability expert Harry D. Chance; the motion is DENIED as to the following: Defendant will not be barred from introducing non-hearsay testimony referring to Plaintiff as a thief; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant's motion to exclude the opinion testimony of Investigator Seitzinger [Docket Item 142] will be DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant's motions [Docket Items 141 & 145] to exclude introduction of the expert report or expert testimony of Dr. Kiekbusch is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; the motion is GRANTED as to testimony related to Dr. Kiekbusch's first three opinions, but it is DENIED as to his fourth and fifth opinions; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant's motion  to exclude evidence and testimony related to: (1) classification of inmates at Cumberland County Correctional Facility; (2) the discretion of the Warden; (3) any disciplinary sanctions imposed on Defendant Martinez following Plaintiff's injuries; and (4) Plaintiff's medical bills stemming from his injuries related to this action that were paid by Cumberland County are GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant's motion  in limine shall be denied as duplicative.
Jerome B. Simandle
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.