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.

Gulliford v. Schilli Transportation Services, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division, Lafayette

January 31, 2017

GORDON GULLIFORD, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
SCHILLI TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          PAUL R. CHERRY MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion In Limine [DE 56], filed on January 12, 2017, by Plaintiff Gordon Gulliford, Sr., by counsel, and Defendant's Motions In Limine [DE 63], filed on January 12, 2017, by Defendant Schilli Transportation Services, Inc., by counsel. The Court has also considered the briefing in support of each motion, Defendant's Response To Plaintiff's Motion In Limine [DE 67] filed January 27, 2017, and Plaintiff's Brief In Opposition To Defendant's Motions In Limine [DE 68] filed January 27, 2017. No replies were permitted.

         In determination of these issues the Court FINDS, ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES:

         Federal Rule of Evidence 104 provides, in part: “Preliminary questions concerning . . . admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the Court.” Motions in Limine to exclude evidence prior to trial are subject to a rigorous standard of review. Courts may bar evidence in limine “only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Dartey v. Ford Motor Co., 104 F.Supp.2d 1017, 1020 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (quoting Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., 831 F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993)). If evidence does not meet this standard, “the evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevance and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.” Id. (quoting Hawthorne, 831 F.Supp. at 1400).

         A court's rulings in limine are preliminary in nature and subject to change. In this Order the Court is not making final determination on the admissibility of any evidence. The Court reserves the right to change these rulings during the trial should the Court find that the evidence or arguments at trial justify such change.

         PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE

         1. Evidence or arguments regarding determination, findings, or disposition of Plaintiff Gulliford's EEOC charge.

         RULING: The Plaintiff's Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant STS has no objection.

         2. Evidence or arguments about Plaintiff Gulliford's EEOC charge of discrimination.

         RULING: The Plaintiff's Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant STS has no objection.

         3. Evidence or arguments on Plaintiff Gulliford's claims dismissed by this Court prior to trial.

         RULING: The Plaintiff's Motion In Limine is GRANTED in this regard. Defendant STS has no objection.

         4. Evidence or argument about statements by Ronald Cox and / or Kevin O'Connell about Defendant STS's Tax Department and / or Plaintiff Gulliford's performance of his work.

         RULING: The Plaintiff's Motion In Limine is partially GRANTED and ...


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.