Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:09-cv-01087_de229> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-01087_de229 RegisterActionDate "2012-03-06" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-01087_de229 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Maria Valdez: Continued Pretrial Conference held on 3/6/12. As stated in open court, Plaintiff's motions in limine numbers six and eleven are granted. Plaintiff's first motion in limine is also granted; however, in the event that Plaintiff opens the door by introducing evidence conveying that she has never experienced being arrested, detained or otherwise engaged by law enforcement, Defendants are free to revisit the issue with the District Court. Plaintiffs ninth motion in limine is denied. Plaintiff's twelfth motion in limine is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's fifth motion in limine is denied; however, all other offenses that Defendants claim there was probable cause for which to arrest Plaintiff must be identified and defined in jury instructions. Defendants' motions in limine numbers two, five, eight, nine and ten are granted. Defendants' first motion in limine is also granted, but Plaintiff may revisit the issue with the District Court in the event that Defendants introduce evidence that makes impeachment by the police department's orders and directives viable. Defendants' third motion in limine is denied as it is unnecessary. Defendants' fourth motion in limine is granted in part and denied in part: the "message" that Plaintiff suggests the jury might send cannot be directed toward the city, but Plaintiff will be permitted to argue that she is attempting to deter Defendant officers from future misconduct. Defendants' sixth motion in limine is denied; any comments Defendants' made to Plaintiff are relevant to damages if made during the relevant time frame for damages on a false arrest claimfrom arrest until the first issuance of process. Defendants' seventh motion in limine is denied.Defendants made no objection to Plaintiff's exhibits one, eleven, thirteen through seventeen, and fifty-three. As to Plaintiff's exhibits two, twenty-nine, and thirty-one through fifty-two, Defendants' objections are sustained. Defendants' objections to Plaintiff's exhibits three through ten, eighteen through twenty-seven, and thirty are overruled. Defendants' objection to Plaintiff's exhibit 28 is sustained; Plaintiff may re-raise the issue with the District Court. The District Court is to rule on Plaintiff's exhibit twelve at the time of trial. Defendants' withdrew their exhibit one. Plaintiff made no objection to Defendants' exhibits three and eight. As to Defendants' exhibits two, and nine through sixteen, Plaintiff's objections are sustained. Plaintiff's objections to Defendants exhibits four through 7 are overruled. Defendants' objections to plaintiff's witnesses number 12 and 21 are overruled. Plaintiff withdraws witness number 19. As to the proffered jury instructions, Defendants' made no objection to Plaintiff's instruction numbers two through five, seven through nineteen, twenty-one, twenty-three through thirty-one, thirty-three and forty-one. Plaintiff's made no objection to Defendants' instruction numbers two, five and ten. Defendants' objections to Plaintiffs instruction numbers twenty-two, thirty-two, thirty-seven, thirty-eight and forty-two are sustained. Defendants withdrew their objection to the first paragraph of Plaintiff's instruction number one; Defendant's objection to the second paragraph of Plaintiff's instruction number one is sustained. Defendants withdrew their instruction number eleven and their objection to Plaintiff's instruction number thirty-nine. Plaintiff withdrew her instruction number six. Defendants' objection to Plaintiff's instruction number thirty-four is sustained; Defendants' instruction number eight will be used instead, but it must be amended to include all offenses that Defendants claim there was probable cause for which to arrest Plaintiff. Defendants' objection to Plaintiff's instruction number thirty-five is overruled; offenses other than Reckless Conduct that Defendants claim there was probable cause for which to arrest Plaintiff must be identified and defined as well. Plaintiff's objections to Defendants' instruction numbers four and seven is sustained. Certain objections to instructions cannot be decided without the benefit of a review of the trial evidence: the District Court will decide if Defendants' instruction numbers one, four and six are necessary; the District Court will decide if Plaintiff's instruction number thirty-six is necessary; the District Court will consider Plaintiff's objection to Defendants' instruction number three and Defendants' objection to Plaintiff's instruction number twenty, and decide which instruction is appropriate. Plaintiff's objection to Defendants' instruction number 11 is sustained, but the District Court will decide whether Plaintiff's instruction number forty will include the option of a nominal award of compensatory damages. Defendant made no objection to the proffered verdict form. Plaintiff's objections to Defendants' special interrogatories are sustained. "Whether to submit special interrogatories (either on all issues or on a subset of issues like damages) is committed to the sound discretion of the district court." E.E.O.C. v. Management Hospitality of Racine, Inc., 666 F.3d 422, 439 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted). The special interrogatories are unnecessary and might confuse the jurors by requiring them to answer many of the issues twice. As to the interrogatories concerning Defendants' qualified immunity, while it is true that "the district court may properly use special interrogatories to allow the jury to determine disputed issues of fact," Brown v. T. Masurski, No. 99 C 2194, 2000 WL 1745242, at * 4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2000) (quoting Warlick v. Cross, 969 F.2d 303, 305 (7th Cir. 1992)), the submission of Defendants' special interrogatories four and eight would require the jury to determine questions of law. The District Court will rule on the parties' voir dire proffers. Court inquires about settlement. Plaintiff is to provide Defendants with her settlement demand letter by 3/27/12. Defendant is to respond by 4/6/12. Status hearing set for potential setting settlement conference on 4/12/12 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (yp, ) (Entered: 03/07/2012)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-01087_de229 AdministrativeID "232" @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-01087_de229 OntologyLabel dismiss_without_prejudice @default.
- ilnd;;1:09-cv-01087_de229 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.