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.

Michael A. Sanders v. Illinois Department of Central Management Services

May 2, 2012

MICHAEL A. SANDERS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DEFENDANT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:

E-FILED

Wednesday, 02 May, 2012 01:34:41 PM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION

This cause is before the Court on Defendant Illinois Department of Central Management Services' Second Motion in Limine (d/e 104). For the reasons that follow, the Second Motion in Limine is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

In August 2009, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant alleging that Defendant violated § 12112(d)(4)(A) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A)*fn1 . Specifically, Plaintiff alleged Defendant violated the ADA by requiring him to submit to a psychological independent medical examination (IME), disciplining him for refusing to submit to the IME, and discharging him for refusing to submit to the IME.

Thereafter, in late 2011, Plaintiff filed a partial motion for summary judgment and Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. In February 2012, this Court denied the motions for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained. See Opinion (d/e 74). In that Opinion, this Court noted that neither party had addressed whether a nondisabled Plaintiff may bring a claim for a violation of § 12112(d) of the ADA. See Opinion (d/e 74), pp. 20-21.

In March 2012, Defendant filed a proposed Pre-Trial Order (d/e 85) identifying as a question of law whether Plaintiff had standing to bring the § 12112(d)(4)(A) claim. Thereafter, on March 20, 2012, this Court appointed counsel to represent Plaintiff. On March 26, 2012, this Court directed Plaintiff's counsel to advise the Court whether he was proceeding under the theory that Plaintiff is a "qualified individual with a disability" or on the basis that a nondisabled plaintiff can sue for a violation of § 12112(d). See March 26, 2012 Text Order.

On April 1, 2012, in response to this Court's Text Order, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Status Report indicating that Plaintiff was proceeding under the theory that he is a qualified individual with a disability as defined in § 12102*fn2 of the ADA. On April 3, 2012, Defendant filed the Second Motion in Limine at issue herein.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Motions in limine are disfavored, as courts prefer to resolve questions of admissibility as they arise. Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 2005 WL 289967, at *1 (N. D. Ill. 2005);

Hawthorn Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). "Only evidence that is clearly inadmissible for any purpose should be excluded pursuant to a motion in limine[.]" Tzoumis v. Tempel Steel Co., 168 F. Supp. 2d 871, 873 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Denial of a motion in limine does not mean that the evidence will be admitted at trial but means only that the court could 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.