PHILLIPS v. DONAHOE
Plaintiff: CATHERINE PHILLIPS
Defendant: PATRICK R. DONAHOE
Case Number: 2:2012cv00410
Filed: March 30, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Office: Pittsburgh Office
County: Butler
Presiding Judge: Nora Barry Fischer
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 30, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 104 Memorandum Order indicating that upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 72 , Plaintiff's Proposed Redactions to Defense Exhibits 13-16, and all the parties' filings with the Court 73 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 78 , 96 , 99 , 100 , their arguments at the Final Pretrial Conference 101 , and for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 72 , has been granted, and it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's Proposed Redactions to Defense Exhibits 13-16 a re SUSTAINED. It is further ordered that: 1. There shall be no mention, reference, or introduction of any testimony or evidence physical or otherwise which in any way relates to the nature or details of Plaintiff's complaint of sexual harassmen t, including but not limited to any photographs of Plaintiff or any co-worker. Nor shall there be any statement or argument by counsel as to same. Likewise, there shall be no mention, reference or introduction of any detail of Plaintiff's sexu al relations or of any character issues dealing with any sexual matter including but not limited to her complaint of sexual harassment, in the liability phase of this case. The parties will reference, as agreed, only that Plaintiff made an allegatio n of sexual harassment by a co-employee and the date of same without mention of any of the details. The parties shall only entertain evidence as to how, if at all, Plaintiff was treated differently since the complaint regarding Plaintiff's terms and conditions of her employment; and 2. Counsel shall instruct their witnesses that they shall make no reference relating to the nature or details of Plaintiff's complaint of sexual harassment, as noted. It is finally ordered that the parties shall meet and confer and provide the Court with the redacted versions of Defense Exhibits 13-16, along with all other exhibits to be presented at trial, on or before 6/2/14 at 9:00 AM, as Defendant represented to the Court that it did not object to said redactions in the event that the Court were to grant Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 101 . Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 5/30/14. (tql)
November 7, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 42 MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for the reasons stated within, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 36 will be granted in part and denied in part; An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/7/13. (jg)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: PHILLIPS v. DONAHOE
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: PATRICK R. DONAHOE
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: CATHERINE PHILLIPS
Represented By: John A. Adamczyk
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?