Gillispie v. Miami Township et al
| Roger Dean Gillispie |
| Miami Township, Matthew Scott Moore, Tim Wilson, Thomas Angel, Marvin Scothorn, John DiPitreo, Unidentified Members of the Miami Township Police Department, Montgomery County Ohio, Kenneth M Betz, Denise Rankin, Ralph Nickoson, Unidentified Employees of the Miami Valley Regional Crime Lab, General Motors Company, Richard Wolfe, Keith Stapleton, Robert Miller, David Burke, Robert Burke, Unidentified Employees of General Motors Company and Stephen Gray |
| 3:2013cv00416 |
| December 13, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Michael R Merz |
| Thomas M Rose |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
568
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING 554 MOTION FOR STAY OFEXECUTION/RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ENFORCE filed by Matthew Scott Moore; DENYING 539 Motion to Enforce Judgment filed by Roger Dean Gillispie. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 3/1/2024. (jmb)
|
|
Filing
519
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING INTERVENOR MIAMI TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL (DOC. NO. 481 ); DENYING INTERVENOR MIAMI TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES' MOTION TO ALT ER OR AMEND JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 482 ); AND DENYING DEFENDANT MATTHEW SCOTT MOORE'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 485 ). For the reasons set forth, the Court DENIES the aforementioned motions. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 7/31/2023. (ep)
|
|
Filing
454
ENTRY AND ORDER granting 447 Motion to Quash. The Court GRANTS the Motion to Quash Subpoena to Ronald Hess (Doc. No. 447) and QUASHES the subpoena issued to Hess. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11-7-2022. (mm)
|
|
Filing
449
ENTRY AND ORDER denying 434 Defendant Matthew Scott Moore's Motion to Dismiss Miami Township's Intervenor Complaint. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11/3/2022. (csm)
|
|
Filing
445
ENTRY ORDER granting 327 Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 4 (Doc. No. 327), as modified by the parties' Notice (Doc. No. 412). The Court bars any evidence or testimony relating to any polygraph examination taken by Gillispie. The Court clarifies that, because Moore did not raise or address the issue in the motion's briefing, it does not make any ruling regarding the limited category of evidence that Gillispie made a request, to Moore, to take a polygraph examination (and Moore did not have Gillispie take a polygraph examination). Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11-2-2022. (mm)
|
|
Filing
433
ENTRY AND ORDER denying 401 Defendant Matthew Scott Moore's Motion to Trifurcate Trial. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10-28-2022. (mm)
|
|
Filing
428
ENTRY and ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant Matthew Scott Moore's Motion in Limine No. 1 - to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert Jennifer Dysart 324 ; granting Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude Refe rences to the Trial Court's Rulings in the Criminal Case 339 ; granting Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 7 to Exclude Certain Testimony from Rebuttal Expert John Wixted 341 ; granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 8 to Exclude Certain Testimony from Defense Expert Anthony Monheim 342 ; granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 9 to Exclude Certain Testimony from Defense Expert John Ryan 375 . Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10/26/2022. (csm)
|
|
Filing
421
ENTRY AND ORDER denying 376 Defendant Matthew Scott Moore's Second Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying 378 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Untimely and Meritless Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and for Expedited Briefing. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10-24-2022. (mm)
|
|
Filing
407
ENTRY AND ORDER granting 337 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 3. The Court grants the three requests made by Gillispie in the motion. One, the Court bars Moore from suggesting, at trial, that he cannot pay compensatory damages. Two, the Court bars Moore from arguing, at trial, that he cannot pay punitive damages. Three, the Court bars Moore from appealing, at trial, to the pecuniary interests of the jurors as taxpayers. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10-17-2022. (mm)
|
|
Filing
393
ENTRY AND ORDER denying 335 Motion in Limine; denying 336 Motion in Limine; and, denying 338 Motion in Limine. The Court (1) DENIES Gillispie's Motion In Limine No. 1 (Doc. No. 335); (2) DENIES Gillispie's Motion In Limine No. 2 (D oc. No. 336); and (3) DENIES Gillispie's Motion In Limine No. 4 (Doc. No. 338). The Court clarifies that this order does not bar Gillispie from, in the future, objecting to or otherwise seeking to exclude any testimony or other evidence that would fall into the categories identified in Gillispie's Motion In Limine No. 1 or Motion In Limine No. 2. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10-11-2022. (mm)
|
|
Filing
379
ENTRY AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 325 Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 2; granting in part and denying in part 326 Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 3; and denying 340 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 6. For th e reasons discussed in the order, the Court excludes evidence or testimony regarding articles or publications that discuss Gillispie's incarceration, release, or artwork made or prepared during his time in jail, but otherwise denies (without pre judice) Moore's Motion in Limine No. 2 (Doc. No. 325). Additionally, the Court excludes any testimony that the finding of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court establishes Gillispie's innocence as it relates to the criminal accusations against him, but otherwise denies (without prejudice) Moore's Motion in Limine No. 3 (Doc. No. 326). Finally, the Court denies (without prejudice) Gillispie's Motion in Limine No. 6 (Doc. No. 340), but specifies that Moore is barred from arguing that Gillispie is guilty of the criminal accusations against him because no court has declared him innocent. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10-4-2022. (mm)
|
|
Filing
322
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL LIMITED DISCOVERY ON THE BASIS OF THE NEWLY DISCLOSED GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS, TO SET A DEADLINE FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANTS WOLFE AND MIAMI TOWNSHIP FOLLOWING THAT DISCOVERY, AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF LEAVE FOR FILING A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IF LIMITED ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY IS NOT PERMITTED (DOC. NO. 312 ) The Court g rants Gillispie leave to conduct additional, limited discovery, as set forth in the CONCLUSION section below, but the Court denies Gillispie leave to file a motion for reconsideration of its summary judgment ruling. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §& #167; 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C), and § 636(b)(3), the case is hereby REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry until the close of the additional discovery period, at which time the referral will automatically expire. Fina lly, the Court sets the following schedule: Cut-off date for filing motions in limine with respect to trial testimony or exhibits August 1, 2022; Cut-off date for filing the parties joint proposed final pretrial order: September 28, 2022; Trial e xhibits to be exchanged by: October 5, 2022; Deadline for filing transcripts of depositions with designations of testimony to be used: October 7, 2022; Cut-off date for filing (and submitting to chambers by email) proposed jury instructions, proposed special verdicts or interrogatories, and a joint statement of the case (which must be consistent with the joint proposed final pretrial order): October 14, 2022;Deadline for filing objections to designated deposition testimony and for filing counte r-designations of deposition testimony: October 21, 2022; Deadline for filing objections to designated counter-designations of deposition testimony: October 26, 2022; Trial exhibits to be delivered to the courtroom deputy by: November 2, 2022. Stat us Conference set for 7/6/2022 at 10:00 AM by Teleconference before Judge Thomas M. Rose. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/13/2022 at 1:30 PM in Chambers before Judge Thomas M. Rose. Jury Trial set for 11/7/2022 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 2 - Dayton before Judge Thomas M. Rose. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 5/2/2022. (bjr)
|
|
Filing
302
ORDER granting 300 Motion to Dismiss. This Court GRANTS the motion, and DISMISSES, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, the claims filed against Defendants General Motors, LLC f/k/a General Motors Company and NGMCO, Inc.; Motors Liquidation Company f/k/a General Motors Corporation; Keith Stapleton; David Burke; and Robert Burke. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11-13-2020. (de)
|
|
Filing
298
ENTRY AND ORDER (1) GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, DEFENDANT RICHARD WOLFE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 171 ; (2) GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, DEFENDANT MATTHEW SCOTT MOORE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 257 ; (3) GR ANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, DEFENDANT MIAMI TOWNSHIP OHIO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 260 ; AND (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW SUMMARY JUDGMENT MATERIALS FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY 284 . Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 9-18-2020. (de)
|
|
Filing
297
NOTICE- The discovery phase of this case has ended. No discovery motions or other matters referred to the undersigned Judicial Officer remain pending. The case is presently set for further proceedings, including trial, before United States District J udge Thomas M. Rose. The Clerk of Court is directed to note in the record that: 1. Referral of this case to the undersigned Judicial Officer has expired; and 2. No motions or other matters in this case remain pending before the undersigned Judicial Officer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 7/23/2020. (kma)
|
|
Filing
296
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS 295 TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES ORDER 294 , BUT GRANTING MOTION WITHIN OBJECTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINES 295 . The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to extend certain deadlines established in the Magistr ate Judge's Order 294 . Therefore, the deadline for Defendants'rebuttal expert disclosures is extended to June 1, 2020, and the deadline for discovery related to Dr. Miller's report and any rebuttal expert witness is extended to June 30, 2020. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 4-23-2020. (de)
|
|
Filing
294
ORDER- IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Disclose Additional Expert Report (Doc. # 283 ) is GRANTED; 2. The deadline for Defendants rebuttal expert disclosures is extended to May 1, 2020; and 3. The deadline for discovery related to Dr. Millers report and any rebuttal expert witness is extended to May 27, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 4/2/2020. (kma)
|
|
Filing
217
ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING, IN PART, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 191 ); OVERRULING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANT MIAMI TOWNSHIP'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BE GRANTED, AND THAT DEFENDANT MILLER BE DISMISSED (DOC. 195 ); OVERRULING OBJECTIONS BY DEFENDANTS MOORE (DOC. 194 ) AND WOLFE (DOC. 196 );GRANTING DEFENDANT ROBERT MILLERS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 117 ) AND DISMISSING ALL COUNTS AGAIN ST DEFENDANT ROBERT MILLER; DENYING DEFENDANTS MOORE AND WOLFES JOINT MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON COUNTS VII AND VIII (DOC. 121 ); DENYING DEFENDANT WOLFE'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 131 ); AND, DENYING MIAMI TOWNSHIP'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 123 ). Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 7/1/19. (ep)
|
|
Filing
216
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING GILLISPIE'S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PERMIT DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL 197 , ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 192 , AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PERMIT DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY 163 . Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 6-25-2019. (de)
|
|
Filing
192
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Plaintiff's Motion to Permit Disclosure of Grand Jury Testimony (Doc. # 163 ) be DENIED without prejudice to renewal. Objections to R&R due by 5/15/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 5/1/2019. (lk)
|
|
Filing
116
DECISION AND ENTRY - It is therefore ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendations filed on December 8, 2017 (Doc. # 115 ) is ADOPTED in full; 2. Plaintiffs Motion to Lift Stay (Doc. 98 ) is DENIED, in part, as to GM Defendants, and GRANTED, in pa rt, as to theremaining Defendants; 3. Defendant New GMs Motion to Continue Stay (Doc. # 103 ) is GRANTED, in part, as to GM Defendants, and DENIED, in part, as to the remaining Defendants; 4. The Stay (Doc. # 74 ) is lifted as to Plaintiffs claims against all non-GM Defendants; and 5. Parties, excluding GM Defendants, are ordered to submit a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Report by January 11, 2018. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 12/29/17. (pb)
|
|
Filing
115
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay 98 be DENIED, in part, as to GM Defendants, and GRANTED, in part, as to the remaining Defendants; Defendant New GM's Motion to Continue Stay 103 be GRANTED, in part, as to GM D efendants, and DENIED, in part, as to the remaining Defendants; The Stay 74 be lifted as to Plaintiff's claims against all non-GM Defendants; and Parties, excluding GM Defendants, be ordered to submit an Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Report. Objections to R&R due by 12/22/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 12/8/2017. (lk)
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER - The parties are ORDERED to advise the Court in writing not later than December 15, 2015, on their positions as to whether the stay should be dissolved at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 12/1/2015. (kpf)
|
|
Filing
74
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY - Further proceedings herein are STAYED pending completion of Ohio court adjudication of Plaintiff's criminal case. The parties shall keep this Court currently informed of the status of those proceedings and of proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. So as not to create a misimpression that this Court is not attending to its business in a diligent manner, all pending motions (Doc. Nos. 47, 51, 53, 59, and 72) to the extent not decided herein are found to be MOOT without prejudice to their renewal upon the lifting of the stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/24/2014. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
65
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO RECUSE - Defendants Miami Township,Matthew Scott Moore, Tim Wilson, Thomas Angel, Marvin Scothorn, John DiPietro, and Stephen Gray Motion to Recuse(Doc. No. 49) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/28/2014. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
54
SCHEDULING ORDER ON MOTION TO RECUSE - It is hereby ORDERED that any party intending to file a response to the Motion for Recusal do so not later than May 16, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/7/2014. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
50
DECISION AND ORDER - Motion of Defendant Tim Wilson to Quash Service (Doc. No. 29) is GRANTED. Motions of Defendants Matthew Scott Moore and Marvin Scothorn (Doc. Nos. 30 and 31) are found to be MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/1/2014. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER - It is ORDERED, pursuant to S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.1.1(d), that any party which wishes to raise an issue of disqualification of the undersigned file a motion to that effect not later than May 1, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 4/22/2014. (kpf1)
|
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 Ohio 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.
