Doe v. Luzerne County et al
| Jane Doe |
| Luzerne County and Ryan Foy |
| 3:2008cv01155 |
| June 17, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Scranton Office |
| Luzerne |
| Unassigned1 |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
119
ORDER re 118 Memorandum (Order to follow as separate docket entry), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:(1)Plaintiffs Motion in Limine Precluding Evidence of Arrest, Nolo Contendere Plea, or Any Related Testimony Since the Incident Occurred Four (4) Years After the Invasion of Privacy at Issue in this Case (Doc. 94) is GRANTED in part and DEFERRED in part. Evidence of Plaintiffs plea of nolo contendere to the July 2011 incident will be precluded; however, determination as to the admissibility of eve nts and circumstances related to the criminal charges and arrest is DEFERRED to the time of trial.(2)Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony about the Sexual Orientation of Plaintiff or Any Other Employee and Their Sexual History (Doc. 98) is DEFERRED to the time of trial.(3)Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants Experts Notes (Doc. 106) is DENIED.(4)Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Preclude Representation of Witnesses (Doc. 108) is DEFERRED to the time of trial. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 10/29/12. (jam)
|
|
Filing
92
MEMORANDUM Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 04/09/12. (ep, )
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER granting 45 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:(1)Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) is GRANTED.(2)JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Defendants.(3)The Clerk of Court shall mark this case as CLOSED Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 8/31/10 (jam, )
|
|
Filing
62
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 52 Motion to Strike ; granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion to Strike. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:1)Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Affidavits Since the Witnesses Were Not Disclosed Du ring Discovery and Permission to Depose Those Individuals Before Trial (Doc. 52) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:a) Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED regarding the affidavits of Jason Volciak, Eric Aigeldinger, and John Jugus. These affid avits are STRICKEN from the record for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i), and these individuals are EXCLUDED from testifying at any hearing or trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). b) Plaintiffs motion to depose Jason Volcia k, Eric Aigeldinger, and John Jugus is DENIED.2) Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Untimely Identified Expert, or in the Alternative, Motion to Permit Plaintiff Time to Hire and Examine Defendants Computers/Servers as Well as Take Defendants Experts Deposi tion (Doc. 55) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:a)Plaintiffs motion to strike Defendants expert disclosure is DENIED.b)Plaintiffs motion to hire an expert is DENIED.c) Plaintiffs motion to depose Defendants expert witness is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 6/1/10 (jam, )
|
|
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1) Defendant Stankus' Motion to Dismiss is CONVERTED to a Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment. 2) The parties shall submit further evidence and/or supplemental briefs of no more than seven (7) pages within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 2/25/10. (jam, )
|
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 Pennsylvania Middle 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.
