Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:07-cv-04765_de404> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-04765_de404 RegisterActionDate "2015-04-14" @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-04765_de404 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Defendants motion to clarify 390 limit on consumer-complaints evidence, which asks to expand the testimony on Levins filing of complaints on his and his wifes behalf, is denied. The complaint against the dentist is the only complaint that the defense reasonably put Plaintiff on notice as being part of the basis for the firing. The pertinent deposition pages, Hagen Tr. 220-21, Rosen Tr. 54, and Spillane Dep. 65 (the defense cited pages 67-68, but really the specific explanation was on page 65), all state general knowledge of more than one complaint, but the testimony specifies only the dentist complaint as misconduct (though quite serious misconduct, because it could be construed as an abuse of office). Nor was there ever an expression of concern that the bare fact of multiple complaints was a premise for the firing. Testimony and evidence about complaints other than the dentist complaint are excluded. Plaintiff must likewise beware of opening the door, and must confine questioning on this topic to the dentist complaint.Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 04/14/2015)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-04765_de404 AdministrativeID "405" @default.
- ilnd;;1:07-cv-04765_de404 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:07-cv-04765_de389 @default.