Thorne v. Steubenville Police Officer

Full title: DANIEL THORNE, JR., et al., Plaintiff, v. STEUBENVILLE POLICE OFFICER…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Nov 29, 2006

Case No. 2:05-cv-0001 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 29, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 2:05-cv-0001.

November 29, 2006

ORDER

ALGENON MARBLEY, District Judge

This matter came before the Court during the Final Pretrial Conference on Wednesday, November 29, 2006. During said conference the Court ruled on the following motions:

Defendants' Motion to Bifurcate Issues for Trial [doc. 87] is MOOT.

Defendants' Motion In Limine Requesting the Plaintiffs be Barred from Presenting any Expert Testimony [doc. 89] is DENIED.

Defendants' Motion In Limine Requesting that Plaintiffs be Barred from Presenting Evidence of Permanent Injury [doc. 90] is DENIED.

Defendants' Motion in Limine Requesting that Plaintiffs be Barred from Presenting Evidence of Lost Wages [doc. 91] is DENIED.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Pretrial Filings Instanter [doc. 94] is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs' First Motion In Limine — Polygraph Testimony [doc. 97] is MOOT.

Plaintiffs' Objections to the Penny Keeder Deposition Being Read into Evidence at Trial [doc. 102] is DENIED.

Plaintiffs' Objection to the Reading of the Deposition of Dr. Friedman at Trial [doc. 105] is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs' Second Motion In Limine — Legal Opinion of City Attorney [doc. 106] is MOOT.

Defendants' Objections to Certain of Plaintiffs' Trial Witnesses [doc. 109] is MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.