STILLMAN v. CITY OF TERRE HAUTE

STILLMAN v. CITY OF TERRE HAUTE

Plaintiff:	MONTY STILLMAN
Defendant:	CITY OF TERRE HAUTE
Case Number:	2:2017cv00394
Filed:	August 15, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Terre Haute Office
Presiding Judge:	Matthew P. Brookman
Presiding Judge:	Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
March 19, 2019	Filing 84 ENTRY - Mr. Stillman's untimely production of his tax and wage documents listed as items 27 through 29 of his untimely Amended Final Exhibit List was neither substantially justified nor harmless. No sanction other than exclusion of the previo usly-undisclosed exhibits would suffice to mitigate the prejudice to the City this close to trial. Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS the City's Objections 82 and ORDERS that Mr. Stillman may not present the excluded exhibits at trial. The Cou rt further ORDERS that Mr. Stillman may seek lost wages only through April 27, 2018. The parties should continue their settlement negotiations with the assistance of the Magistrate Judge. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/19/2019. (DMW)
February 1, 2019	Filing 55 ORDER - This case arises out of an employment dispute between plaintiff Monty Stillman and the City of Terre Haute, Indiana ("the City"). Mr. Stillman contends that he was subjected to a hostile work environment and that his employment w as ultimately terminated in retaliation for having spoken up for, and participated in the lawsuit of, a coworker who suffers from a cognitive disability. He raises claims for negligent supervision, slander, and discriminatory retaliation. Presentl y pending before the Court is the City's Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of Mr. Stillman's claims. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the City's Motion for Summary Judgment 32 . The Court GRANTS the Motion as to Mr. Stillman's slander claim (Count II). Other than noting that compensatory and punitive damages are not available to Mr. Stillman, the Court DENIES the Motion as to Mr. Stillman's claims for retaliation under the ADA (Count III), and negli gent supervision (Count I). The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the parties at her earliest convenience regarding a possible resolution of this matter short of trial. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/1/2019. (RSF)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 19, 2019

Filing 84 ENTRY - Mr. Stillman's untimely production of his tax and wage documents listed as items 27 through 29 of his untimely Amended Final Exhibit List was neither substantially justified nor harmless. No sanction other than exclusion of the previo usly-undisclosed exhibits would suffice to mitigate the prejudice to the City this close to trial. Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS the City's Objections 82 and ORDERS that Mr. Stillman may not present the excluded exhibits at trial. The Cou rt further ORDERS that Mr. Stillman may seek lost wages only through April 27, 2018. The parties should continue their settlement negotiations with the assistance of the Magistrate Judge. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/19/2019. (DMW)

February 1, 2019

Filing 55 ORDER - This case arises out of an employment dispute between plaintiff Monty Stillman and the City of Terre Haute, Indiana ("the City"). Mr. Stillman contends that he was subjected to a hostile work environment and that his employment w as ultimately terminated in retaliation for having spoken up for, and participated in the lawsuit of, a coworker who suffers from a cognitive disability. He raises claims for negligent supervision, slander, and discriminatory retaliation. Presentl y pending before the Court is the City's Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of Mr. Stillman's claims. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the City's Motion for Summary Judgment 32 . The Court GRANTS the Motion as to Mr. Stillman's slander claim (Count II). Other than noting that compensatory and punitive damages are not available to Mr. Stillman, the Court DENIES the Motion as to Mr. Stillman's claims for retaliation under the ADA (Count III), and negli gent supervision (Count I). The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the parties at her earliest convenience regarding a possible resolution of this matter short of trial. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/1/2019. (RSF)

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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: STILLMAN v. CITY OF TERRE HAUTE
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: CITY OF TERRE HAUTE
Represented By:	Mark Douglas Hassler
Represented By:	Jacob H. Miller
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: MONTY STILLMAN
Represented By:	Paul Jungers
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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?