Shavuo v. Shinseki et al
| Arnold Shavuo |
| Eric K. Shinseki and John Cliffe |
| 7:2010cv02914 |
| April 5, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Orange |
| Cathy Seibel |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| 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
59
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Presently before us are the Government's second motion in limine and Plaintiff Arnold Shavuo's motion in limine. As set forth below, both motions are granted in part, and denied in part. re: 46 MOTION in Lim ine Notice of Motion - Government's Second Motion in Limine filed by Eric K. Shinseki. For the reasons set forth above, the Government's second motion in limine is granted with respect to references to Shavuo's now-dismissed rac e and hostile work environment claims. That motion is also granted such that Dr. Carbone may not testify about the actual cause of Shavuo's termination. The Government's motion is otherwise denied, as we will allow the use of Shavuo's Exhibit 13, once redacted, and Exhibit 15. Shavuo's motion in limine is granted as to the Government's Exhibits E through J, M, and O. The motion is denied with respect to the Government's Exhibits K and L. Exhibits D and N may be offered at trial, once redacted per this order. We reserve judgment on the admissibility of Exhibit P. (Signed by Judge Marvin E. Aspen on 4/5/2013) (sac)
|
|
Filing
58
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, the motion is allowed. The parties shall not introduce to the jury any exhibits or testimony supporting or contesting Shavuos claims for front and back pay. We will not instruct the jury on these issues, nor may the verdict sheet inquire as to such damages. If the jury finds in Shavuos favor on liability, the court will convene a damages hearing shortly thereafter and consider whether the evidence warrants equitable relief. The Governments first motion in limine is denied in part, and Shavuo may proceed to trial on his disparate treatment claim. The motion is further denied as to Defendants Exhibits Q, R, and T, which may be introduced as needed for the reasons indicated above. The motion is prelim inarily granted as to other evidence of Shavuos disciplinary history based on tardiness or attendance issues and as to evidence related to the back and front pay requests. We will issue a separate order in due course addressing the Governments second motion in limine, as well as Shavuos pending motion. The parties shall review and modify their proposed jury instructions to ensure consistency with this opinion. Revised instructions shall be filed on or by Friday, April 5, 2013. The parties joint statement of the case and verdict form should also reflect the rulings herein. Finally, the parties are encouraged to enter into any additional stipulations of fact that could streamline the presentation of evidence and mitigate evidentiary disputes at trial. (Signed by Judge Marvin E. Aspen on 4/3/2013) (js)
|
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 New York Southern 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.
