Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Latimore v. Poon

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

September 14, 2018

JASON LATIMORE, Plaintiff,
v.
VINCENT POON, Defendant.

          ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

          F. DENNIS SAYLOR IV, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The Court makes the following rulings on the motions in limine of the parties. All rulings are subject to revision or reconsideration depending on the evidence presented at trial.

         1. In docket no. 514, plaintiff has requested evidentiary rulings on various issues.

         The motion is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:

• The motion is DENIED as to the shift commander summary reports. Plaintiff contends that the purpose of the evidence is to show “the conspiratorial design of covering up all evidence and reporting requirements related to the 11/2/11 assault.” The only defendant is Vincent Poon; the shift commanders are not defendants. Furthermore, plaintiff appears to request that the Court instruct the jury that it is “routine practice to report issuance (sic) of disciplinary action in the shift commander summary report.” The Court cannot instruct the jury as to a factual matter.
• The motion is DENIED as to the Kelleher affidavit. Although it is unclear, plaintiff appears to seek to require an affidavit from an attorney, Victoria Kelleher, certifying certain records. The Court cannot require a witness to provide an affidavit.
• The motion is DENIED as to the request for a Rule 45 subpoena to the former Superintendent of MCI-Norfolk, Gary Roden. The motion seeks the testimony of Roden concerning evidence of spoliation of evidence. There does not appear to be any factual basis for believing that Roden spoliated any evidence or directed that it be done.
• The motion is GRANTED as to the employment records from Aerotek, Inc. It appears that the records are admissible, assuming they are offered in proper form, and that plaintiff intends to use the records for the limited purpose of proving damages.
• The motion is DENIED as to the last will and testament of Harvie Latimore Jr. It is unclear what relation Harvie Latimore Jr. has to the plaintiff, and the will has no apparent bearing on this case.
• The motion is DENIED as to the disciplinary history of William Grossi, the former Director of Security at MCI-Norfolk. Grossi was not involved in the alleged assault at issue, and it does not appear that he has any relevant evidence to offer.
• The motion is DENIED without prejudice as to the disciplinary history of defendant Vincent Poon. It is possible that the records are relevant to show bias or otherwise to impeach Poon, but a proper factual basis needs to be made.

         2. In docket no. 539, defendant has moved to preclude certain witnesses from testifying. The motion is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice, as follows:

• The motion is GRANTED with respect to William Grossi, the former Director of Security at MCI-Norfolk. As set forth above, Grossi does not appear to be a witness.
• The motion is GRANTED with respect to Gary Roden, the former Superintendent of MCI-Norfolk. Roden was not involved in the alleged assault at issue, and it does not appear ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.