Colon et al v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company et al

Plaintiff: Milton Omar Colon and Arlene Davis
Defendant: Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company and Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Case Number: 3:2013cv00325
Filed: March 11, 2013
Court: Connecticut District Court
Office: New Haven Office
County: New Haven
Presiding Judge: Alvin W. Thompson
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: No cause code entered
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
August 9, 2017 453 Opinion or Order of the Court RULING DENYING MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE ANY EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT U.I.'S TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CAUSED A SENSATION IN MR. COLON AND/OR THAT IT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CAUSED HIS FALL. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, UI's moti on in limine (Doc. # 316 ) is DENIED. Dr. Stern will be permitted to testify concerning his opinions about what caused any electrical shock to plaintiff Colon, including his views concerning the likelihood or probability that UI's wires caused or contributed to any electric shock/sensation experienced by Colon. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/9/2017. (Black, R.)
August 4, 2017 448 Opinion or Order of the Court RULING GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING R.C.S.A. § 16-11-102. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, defendants' motion in limine (Doc. # 329 ) regarding R.C.S.A. § 16-11-102(a) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are precluded from offering at trial any evidence, testimony, or argument regarding R.C.S.A. § 16-11-102. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/4/2017. (Black, R.)
August 3, 2017 441 Opinion or Order of the Court RULING DENYING DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO DISMISS. For the reasons given in the attached ruling, defendant MTA's motion to dismiss is DENIED. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/3/2017. (Black, R.)
August 2, 2017 439 Opinion or Order of the Court RULING GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND EXCLUDING FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION CASUALTY REPORTS. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, defendant's motion for reconsideration (Doc. # 411 ) is GRANTED. The Court excludes from evidence the Federal Railroad Administration casualty reports and related summaries (Plaintiffs Exhibits #27 and #28 and underlying data) as well as any other evidence of injuries along the Metro-North rail line in the absence of a showing that these additional casualty incidents occurred under substantially similar circumstances as the incident at issue in this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/2/2017. (Black, R.)
June 2, 2017 381 Opinion or Order of the Court RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE. In accordance with the reasons stated on the record during the pretrial conference on June 1, 2017, the Court issues the following orders:(1) Plaintiffs' motion to preclude MTA police reports a nd/or evidence of copper theft (Doc. # 322 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED as to Exh. 515, DENIED as to Exh. 518, and DENIED as to Exh. 516, which will be admitted at trial if defendants lay a proper foundation pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) or any other exception to the hearsay rules. The motion is DENIED as moot as to Exh. 517, in light of defendants' representation that the exhibit will be used, if at all, only to refresh a witness's recollection, bu t without prejudice to renewal in the event defendants determine at a later time that they intend, contrary to their representations, to offer the exhibit. The motion to preclude testimony about Colon's possible copper theft or attempt to steal MTA property is GRANTED. Defendants shall not elicit testimony or attempt to show that Colon was on defendants' property to commit a crime or steal copper wire.(2) Plaintiffs' motion in limine to allow various summaries (Doc. # 323 ) is GRANTED in the absence of any suggestion that the summaries are factually inaccurate.(3) Plaintiffs' motion to compel defendants to accept trial subpoenas (Doc. # 360 ) is GRANTED subject to the understanding that defendants will facilitate service of process by setting up a time and place for service of the witnesses, but will not themselves accept service of process. (4) Plaintiffs' motions for judicial notice regarding the authentication of photographs an d pediatrician records, and regarding the proximity of schools and playgrounds (Docs. # 350 , # 351 , # 353 ) are DENIED without prejudice to renewal in the event the exhibits and testimony have not been admitted through conventional means at trial, i.e., by presenting witnesses and laying a proper foundations, as is custom during a trial. Plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice regarding the unreliability of urine toxicity tests (Doc. # 352 ) is DENIED as not the proper subject of ju dicial notice. (5) Defendants' motion to preclude testimony of late-disclosed witnesses (Doc. # 325 ) is DENIED, except that defendants are permitted to depose the witnesses identified in the motion within the next 30 days, with each dep osition not to exceed two hours in duration. (6) Defendants' motion to preclude evidence regarding the MTA's duty to patrol (Doc. # 328 ) is GRANTED insofar as plaintiffs do not assert that the MTA owed Colon a duty to patrol. The p arties remain free to inquire into the MTA's policing activities, and their efficacy, as relevant to other issues in the case. (7) Defendants' motion to preclude evidence about constant intrusion and/or limit the geographic scope of evidence of trespassing (Doc. # 331 ) is DENIED, subject to plaintiffs' representation that physical and testimonial evidence regarding trespass along the right-of-way will be limited, geographically, to within one-mile in either direction of T ower #1043. Evidence from the FRA Casualty Reports will not be limited geographically. (8) Defendants' motion to preclude the testimony of Carl Berkowitz, Ph.D, P.E. (Doc. # 332 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRAN TED insofar as Berkowitz may not comment on the evidence in a manner not requiring expertise, such as on topics (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of Doc. # 371 at 2. The motion is also GRANTED insofar as Berkowitz may not testify about applicable legal st andards, such as topic (6) of Doc. #371 at 2, to the extent that such standard is not incorporated into Berkowitz's opinion concerning the industry standard of care. The motion is otherwise DENIED with respect to Berkowitz's opinions about accepted industry standards for the safety precautions at issue, see Doc. #371-2 at 35-37, particularly because defendants do not dispute that Berkowitz is qualified to opine on those standards. Berkowitz may also testify about the application of any accepted industry standards to defendants, and about the use of effective warnings if that use is tied to his testimony on accepted industry standards. If plaintiffs intend to have Berkowitz interpret photographs, they must lay a foundation f or why expert testimony is needed, and why Berkowitz is qualified as an expert to interpret those photographs. (9) Defendants' motion to preclude the testimony of Elliot Stern, Ph.D (Doc. # 333 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Th e motion is GRANTED insofar as Stern may not comment on the evidence in a manner not requiring expertise, such as on topics (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of Doc. # 372 at 2. The motion is also GRANTED insofar as Stern may not testify about applicable legal standards, such as topic (6) of Doc. #372 at 2, to the extent that such standard is not incorporated into Berkowitz's opinion concerning the industry standard of care. The motion is otherwise DENIED as to Stern's accident-reconstructi on testimony, as well as topics (7) and (8) of Doc. #372 at 2 as they relate to accepted industry standards for electrical issues, with the understanding that defendants have not challenged Stern's expertise in these matters and subject to the s ame general limits as set forth with respect to Berkowitz. (10) Defendants' motion to preclude photographs obtained by plaintiffs' counsel without defendants' consent (Doc. # 340 ) is DENIED, but defendants may inquire on cross -examination about how the photographs were obtained, if that information is relevant. (11) Defendants' motion to preclude evidence about spoliation of the path (Doc. # 343 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED a s to any evidence about alleged bad faith conduct or culpability of defendants in covering the path by performing track maintenance, but DENIED so as to allow evidence about the fact that defendants caused the path to be covered if that evidence rela tes to, for example, inability of expert witnesses to make observations at a certain time. (12) UI's motion to preclude evidence that UI was negligent or owed a duty of care to Colon (Doc. # 315 ) is GRANTED, without prejudice to Metro-N orths ability to assert that any duty it might have owed was instead owed by UI. The remaining pre-trial motions (Docs. # 321 , # 326 , # 327 , # 339 , # 329 , # 330 , # 345 , # 316 ) have been taken under advisement. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/2/2017. (Gruber, Sarah)
April 10, 2017 292 Opinion or Order of the Court RULING DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION TO APPEAL AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, defendants' motion for leave to certify an interlocutory appeal and for a stay of proceedings (Doc. # 276 ) is DENIED, and defendants' motion for reconsideration of the Court's discovery costs/fees order (Doc. # 278 ) is DENIED. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 4/10/2017. (Gruber, Sarah)
March 13, 2017 274 Opinion or Order of the Court RULING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 209 ) is DENIED, and defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 146 ) is DENIED IN PART and GRANT ED as to wilful, wanton, and reckless conduct. UI's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 206 ) is GRANTED as to common-law indemnity and apportionment, and DENIED as to contractual indemnity. All motions for sanctions and/or adverse inferences (D ocs. # 190 , # 194 , # 203 ) are largely denied, save the limited discovery that will be allowed as set forth in this ruling. I also find as moot plaintiff's remaining documents mislabeled on my docket as "motions," including Docs. #[1 82], # 202 , # 219 , # 263 , # 264 , # 269 . Plaintiff's counsel is requested to learn how to file and label documents properly on CM/ECF. The parties shall file their joint trial memorandum by May 12, 2017, or within 30 days of completi on of the 30(b)(6) depositions as set forth in this ruling. Please refer to the District of Connecticut website for my "Trial Preferences" and "Instructions for Joint Trial Memorandum." Jury selection will be held on July 6, 2017 at 8:30 a.m., with a back-up date of August 3, 2017. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/13/2017. (Gruber, Sarah)
July 28, 2014 92 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Denying 70 Plaintiff's Rule 72 Objection. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 7/28/2014. (Ramesh, S)
June 30, 2014 85 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER re 69 Amended Complaint filed by Milton Omar Colon, Arlene Davis. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/30/3014.(Ramesh, S)
April 3, 2014 68 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 55 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 4/3/14. (Nichols, J.)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Colon et al v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Milton Omar Colon
Represented By: John Jowdy
Represented By: Brian P Rush
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Arlene Davis
Represented By: John Jowdy
Represented By: Brian P Rush
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company
Represented By: Charles A. Deluca
Represented By: Beck S. Fineman
Represented By: Robert O. Hickey
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Represented By: Charles A. Deluca
Represented By: Beck S. Fineman
Represented By: Robert O. Hickey
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?