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.

Williams v. Derifield

April 25, 2006

PHYLLIS WILLIAMS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SHAUN DERIFIELD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel Der-yeghiayan, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on the parties' motions in limine. For the reasons stated below, we grant in part and deny in part the motions in limine.

I. Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine

Plaintiffs request that the court deem all facts admitted by Defendants as undisputed pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 during the briefing of Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment to be admitted as undisputed at trial as well. However, Local Rule 56.1 is intended to assist the court in ruling on motions for summary judgment by presenting the facts in an organized fashion and facilitating the court's inquiry regarding whether there are genuinely disputed facts. The rule is not intended to be used as an admission to facts at trial. Therefore, we deny Plaintiffs' motion to have the facts admitted as undisputed by Defendants pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 deemed admitted at trial. See Koch-Weser v. Board of Educ. of Riverside Brookfield High School Dist. 208, 2002 WL 31133143, at *8 (N.D. Ill. 2002)(refusing a request to read a statement of material facts at trial as undisputed facts). Plaintiffs also move for leave to have Diana M. Lin ("Lin") appear as additional counsel. We grant the motion for leave to have Lin file an appearance.

II. Hermes' Motions in Limine

Defendant Harley Hermes ("Hermes") has also filed motions in limine.

Hermes moves to bar witnesses that were not properly disclosed during discovery. Plaintiffs do not object to the motion and we grant the motion.

Hermes moves to bar any expert testimony. Plaintiffs do not object to the motion and we grant the motion.

Hermes moves to bar Plaintiffs from questioning potential jurors during the voir dire phase of the trial as to specific monetary damages. We note that the court will question the jurors during the voir dire process. However, to the extent that the court considers the input of the parties, we agree that such questioning would be improper. In addition, Plaintiffs do not object to the motion. Therefore, the motion is granted.

Hermes moves to bar Plaintiffs from commenting in the presence of the jury on the fact that Hermes did not call a witness who was equally available to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs do not object to the motion and the motion is granted.

Hermes requests that all non-party witnesses be barred from the courtroom until they testify. Plaintiffs do not object to the motion and the motion is granted.

Hermes requests that Plaintiffs be barred from presenting evidence of future damages. Plaintiffs do not object to the motion and the motion is granted.

Hermes moves to bar any evidence regarding Plaintiffs' future lost income. Plaintiffs do not object to the motion and the motion is granted.

Hermes moves to bar any evidence regarding medical costs, hospital bills, physician bills or other medical expenses incurred by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs do not ...


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.