August 7, 2015 |
Filing
135
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:1. DEFENDANT ERRINGTONS MOTION TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFFS EXPERT, KATHLEEN MURRAY, R.N., ECF NO. 89, IS DENIED.2. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS EXPERT, MARK KROLL, ECF NO. 94, IS DENIED.3. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDA NTS FROM OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE OF MR. MARTINS CRIMINAL BACKGROUND OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEACH PLAINTIFFS TESTIMONY WITH EVIDENCE OF HIS PRIOR CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, ECF NO. 100, IS DENIED.4. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM OFFERING ANY EVID ENCE AT TRIAL REGARDING THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED BEFORE PLAINTIFF REACHED THE WEST SHORE BYPASS BRIDGE, ECF NO. 101, IS DENIED.25. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE AT TRIAL OR MAKING ANY REFERENCE TO ALLEGED DRUG PA RAPHERNALIA FOUND AT THE SCENE, ECF NO. 102, IS GRANTED.6. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS FROM PRESENTING ANY EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY FROM GLADYS PAINTER OR BARBARA ANN FAIR AT TRIAL, ECF NO. 103, IS DENIED.37. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PRECLUDE A LL DEFENDANTS FROM OFFERING INTO EVIDENCE THE INTEGRATED CASE SUMMARY 13A PAROLE SUMMARY, ECF NO. 104, IS DENIED.8. NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2015, AT 12:00 P.M., EACH PARTY SHALL FILE A BRIEF MEMORANDUM OF LAW ADDRESSING (I) THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATION INTO THE EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THIS ACTION, AND (II) WHETHER BIFURCATION OF THE TRIAL OF THIS MATTER IS APPROPRIATE.9. NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2015, AT 12:00 P.M., EACH PARTY SHAL L FILE, IF NOT ALREADY FILED, REVISED PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, WHICH SHALL QUOTE OR CITE, AS APPLICABLE, MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS OR CASE CITATIONS. WITH RESPECT TO ANY PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION THAT QUOTES FROM A MODEL JURY INSTRUCTION, SUCH PROPO SED JURY INSTRUCTION SHALL BE MARKED TO SHOW DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION AND THE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTION.10. NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2015, AT 12:00 P.M., EACH PARTY SHALL FILE, IF NOT ALREADY FILED, PROPOSED SPECIAL INTER ROGATORIES. SPECIFICALLY, THE PROPOSED SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SHALL ADDRESS ANY FINDINGS OF FACT NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE COURT TO RESOLVE ANY QUESTIONS OF LAW WITH RESPECT TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. SEE CURLEY V. KLEM, 499 F.3D 199, 209-11 (3D CIR. 2007 ) (RECOGNIZING THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER AN OFFICER MADE A REASONABLE MISTAKE OF LAW AND IS THUS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IS A QUESTION OF LAW THAT IS PROPERLY ANSWERED BY THE COURT, NOT A JURY, AND SUGGESTING THE USE OF SPECIAL INTERROGATOR IES TO ALLOW THE JURY TO DETERMINE[] DISPUTED HISTORICAL FACTS MATERIAL TO THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY QUESTION (QUOTING CARSWELL V. BOROUGH OF HOMESTEAD, 381 F.3D 235, 242 (3D CIR. 2004))).11. PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST OF PLAINTIFF DURING THE FINAL PRETRIA L CONFERENCE HELD ON AUGUST 5, 2015, AND LACK OF ANY OBJECTION FROM DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS JOHN DOE-1 THROUGH JOHN DOE-9 ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 8/7/2015. 8/7/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )
|
July 31, 2015 |
Filing
125
ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. DEFENDANT MICHAEL PAVELKO'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 84, IS GRANTED, ETC. 2. DEFENDANTS CITY OF READING, READING POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM HEIM, DAMOND KLOC, AND DRIAN ERRINGTON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 87, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, ETC. 3. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 86, IS DENIED, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 7/31/2015. 7/31/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )
|