Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:11-cv-01922_de113> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-01922_de113 RegisterActionDate "2014-10-31" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-01922_de113 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: For the reasons set forth in the detailed Order to follow separately, the Court rules on Plaintiff's contested motions in limine 95 and Defendants' contested motions in limine 96 as follows. The Court reserves ruling on Plaintiff's motion in limine no. 4 until trial. Plaintiff's motion in limine no. 6 is granted. Defendants are precluded from introducing evidence of Plaintiff's prior arrests, accusations, or charges, unless Plaintiff "opens the door" by affirmatively claiming at trial that she has never had any prior arrests, accusations, or charges, in which case Defendants may use such evidence for impeachment purposes. Plaintiff's motion in limine no. 8 is granted. Plaintiff's motion in limine no. 9 is denied. However, prior to publishing the educational materials to the jury, Defendants shall redact any references to Plaintiff's history of substance abuse prior to the date of the incident. Defendants' motion in limine no. 1 is granted. Plaintiff's treating physicians may testify only as fact witnesses and therefore may not provide expert opinions on whether Plaintiff's conditions were caused by the Defendant Officers' conduct, Plaintiff's prognosis, or the future impact of Plaintiff's injuries. Defendants' motion in limine no. 2 is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff may inform the jury that the underlying criminal charges against her were dismissed but may not introduce evidence regarding any purported reasons for the dismissal. The Court reserves ruling on Defendants' motion in limine no. 5. Defendants' motion in limine no. 6 is denied. Defendants' motion in limine no. 7 is granted, with the exception that Plaintiff may mention the City of Chicago as the Defendant Officers' employer. Defendants' motion in limine no. 8 is granted. Plaintiffs are barred from offering any evidence or argument suggesting that the Defendant Officers may be indemnified by the City of Chicago for any compensatory damages award. Furthermore, the Court will instruct the jury that the Defendant Officers' financial condition may be considered for purposes of determining punitive damages only. Defendants' motion in limine no. 9 is granted in part. Dr. Hobfoll will not be permitted to testify regarding the use of force necessary to control Plaintiff or his opinion regarding Plaintiff's future, lifelong diminished capacity. The Court reserves ruling on whether Dr. Hobfoll may testify regarding whether Plaintiff is malingering. Defendants' motion in limine no. 10 is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff may offer evidence that she requested but did not receive medical care while in the custody of the Defendant Officers, but she may not offer testimony regarding the denial of medical care by any other, non-party officers. Defendants' motion in limine no. 11 is granted. Mailed notice (ac, ) (Entered: 10/31/2014)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-01922_de113 AdministrativeID "111" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-01922_de113 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:11-cv-01922_de96 @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-01922_de113 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:11-cv-01922_de97 @default.