Coughlin et al v. Town of Arlington et al
| Stavroula Bouris and Charles E. Coughlin, Jr. |
| Nathan Levenson, Tracy Buck, Jeffrey Thielman, Town of Arlington School Committee and Arlington, Town of |
| 1:2010cv10203 |
| February 8, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Middlesex |
| Mark L. Wolf |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination) |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
208
Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered SEE ATTACHED.PDF filedenying 122 Motion in Limine; granting 123 Motion in Limine; granting 124 Motion in Limine; denying 126 Motion in Limine; denying 130 Motion in Limine; denying 131 Motion in Lim ine; denying 132 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 133 Motion in Limine; denying 135 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 138 Motion in Limine For the reasons stated in court on October 21, 2013, i t is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Coughlin from Arguing or Attempting to Elicit Testimony that He Has Been Unable to Find Work as a Teacher Due to the Alleged Actions of Any of the Defendants (Docket No. 122) is DENIED. 2. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude the Plaintiff, Charles Coughlin, from Contesting the Existence or Application of an "Acceptable Use Policy" for Use of the Arlington Public School Email Server (Docket No. 123) is ALLOWED. 3. The Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude the Report and Anticipated Testimony from Plaintiffs' Proposed Expert, Mark D. Rasch (Docket No. 124) is ALLOWED without prejudice to possible reconsideration at trial if it then appea rs that his proposed testimony is relevant to any particular documents and the defendants had fair notice of that testimony. See Licciardi v. TIG 1 These dates differ from those stated in court on October 21, 2013. Ins. Grp., 140 F.3d 357 (1st Cir. 1998). 4. Defendant's, Jeffrey Thielman, Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiffs from Making Any Argument or Attempting to Elicit Testimony via Direct or Cross-Examination that Thielman Ever Allegedly Asserted the "Unemployable Statement&qu ot; (Docket No. 126) is DENIED. If the defendants wish to depose any of the possible witnesses concerning this alleged statement -- Denise Burns, Sean Garley, and Joe Curren - defendants shall inform plaintiffs by October 30, 2013, and the deposition s shall be taken on November 6, 2013, or on any other date prior to November 9, 2013 upon which the parties agree. 5. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence that the E-mails at Issue Were Accessed Criminally (Docket No. 130) is DENIED . 6. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony of Plaintiffs' Proposed Expert, David G. Pitts (Docket No. 131) is DENIED. However, the plaintiffs shall, by November 6, 2013, supplement Pitts' expert report to provide an amplif ied narrative of the assumptions on which his opinions are based and any revised calculations concerning damages. If the defendants continue to object to Pitts' testimony, they may renew their motion by November 14, 2013 and plaintiffs shall res pond by November 20, 2013. 7. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Certain Evidence Regarding the E-mails at Issue (Docket No. 132) is DENIED. 8. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Preclude Admission of the "Anonymous" Note (Doc ket No. 133) is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant Tracy Buck may testify that she received an anonymous note and describe what she did as a result, but may not describe the purported content of the note. 9. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limi ne to Preclude Admission of the Emails (Docket No. 135) is DENIED. 10. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Reference Relative to the Arbitration Proceedings (Docket No. 138) is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, without prejudice to reconsi deration at or before trial. Unless otherwise ordered, the parties may not introduce evidence that the arbitrator found that the terminations of plaintiffs' employment were each justified. However, the parties may use at trial evidence from the arbitration proceedings, including transcripts. 11. By November 8, 2013, the parties shall file supplementary memoranda addressing whether the arbitrator's decision that the plaintiffs were not wrongfully terminated and/or the Superior Court 9;s affirmance of that decision are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) and whether the court should take judicial notice, under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, of the Superior Court decision. Responses shall be filed by November 15, 2013. See Herrick v. Garvey, 298 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2002); Nipper v. Snipes, 7 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 1993); United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549 (11th Cir. 1994); Kowalski v. Gagne, 914 F.2d 299 (1st Cir. 1990); Taylor v. Charter Med. Corp., 162 F.3d 827 (5th Cir. 1998); Int'l Star Class Yacht Racing Ass'n v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., 146 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 1998). 12. By November 20, 2013, the parties shall meet and submit: (a) A list of: the witnesses they intend to call at trial, in the order of their expected testimony; the exhibits associated with each witness; and any objections to those exhibits. (b) Two sets of their proposed exhibits. Electronic copies may also be filed. Uncontested exhibits shall be labeled numerically, and e xhibits as to which a party objects shall be labeled alphabetically. (c) A description of any material disputes concerning the proposed jury instructions. (d) A redacted form of the complaint, which may be given to the jury during trial. (e) A report on whether they have agreed to settle or otherwise resolve this case. 13. By November 20, 2013, the plaintiffs shall file a proposed special verdict form. 14. If necessary, a final pre-trial conference will be held on November 26, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. Trial counsel with full settlement authority and their client(s) shall attend. 15. Trial will commence on December 2, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. (Hohler, Daniel)
|
|
Filing
170
Judge Mark L. Wolf: "As the postponement of the trial date is a material change in circumstances, this motion is hereby DENIED. However, it may be renewed if there is a threat that counsel will not be able to appear on June 18, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. for the summary judgment hearing and pretrial conference." ORDER entered denying 165 Motion for Protective Order. (MacDonald, Gail)
|
|
Filing
127
Judge Mark L. Wolf: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. As Michael J. Long, Esq., defendant Nathan Levenson, and Professor Irwin Blumer each state that Professor Blumer was not at the July 12, 2007 meeting, Professor Blumer's request to be excused from being available to testify at the April 18, 2013 hearing is hereby ALLOWED. If his testimony proves to be necessary, it will be scheduled for a later date.(Hohler, Daniel)
|
|
Filing
103
Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER re: Sequestration entered. (MacDonald, Gail)
|
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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
