Cote v. Schnell Indus.

Full title: DAYTON COTE, Plaintiff, v. SCHNELL INDUSTRIES, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

Date published: Nov 8, 2022

4:18-CV-01440 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2022)

Opinion

4:18-CV-01440

11-08-2022

DAYTON COTE, Plaintiff, v. SCHNELL INDUSTRIES, Defendant.

MATTHEW W. BRANN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

MATTHEW W. BRANN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff Dayton Cote's first, second, third, fourth, and fifth motions in limine (Doc. 236; Doc. 238; Doc. 240; Doc. 242; Doc. 244) are GRANTED;

2. Cote's sixth motion in limine (Doc. 246) is DENIED;

3. Defendant Schnell Industries' first, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth motions in limine (Doc. 248; Doc. 250; Doc. 252; Doc. 254; Doc. 258; Doc. 260; Doc. 262) are DENIED; and

4. Schnell's fifth motion in limine (Doc. 256) is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART-consistent with this Court's ruling on Schnell's Daubert motion (Doc. 266; Doc. 267), Cote may offer evidence and

argument about the design and of TLX36 transloader's electrical circuit and the location of the transloader's “power takeoff” controls, but he cannot present evidence or argument about the location of the dust collector or stairs.