From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roberts v. Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Mar 7, 2013
No. 5:10-cv-174-DPM (E.D. Ark. Mar. 7, 2013)

Opinion

No. 5:10-cv-174-DPM

03-07-2013

BRUNSON ROBERTS, ADC #127841 PLAINTIFF v. RODERICK JOHNSON and RICKY WEBB DEFENDANTS


ORDER

For the reasons stated on the record at the end of the 6 March 2013 telephone hearing, the newly produced records, Document No. 142, at 3-20, will not be admitted in evidence. They may not be used for impeachment either; they are rebuttal evidence, which likewise should have been produced sooner. This last ruling, though, is without prejudice to the Defendants' revisiting the issue if they find authority beyond Harris and like cases. Given the inadvertent failure to produce the records earlier, and the fact that they do exist, Roberts will not be allowed to cross-examine witnesses about the lack of additional sanitation logs and rosters.

So Ordered.

________________________

D.P. Marshall Jr.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Roberts v. Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Mar 7, 2013
No. 5:10-cv-174-DPM (E.D. Ark. Mar. 7, 2013)
Case details for

Roberts v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:BRUNSON ROBERTS, ADC #127841 PLAINTIFF v. RODERICK JOHNSON and RICKY WEBB…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

Date published: Mar 7, 2013

Citations

No. 5:10-cv-174-DPM (E.D. Ark. Mar. 7, 2013)