Bradshaw v. Johanns

UNlTED STA"l"ES DISTRICT COURT

FOR 'l`HE DiS'i"RlCT OF COLUMBIA

RODNEY BRADSI*IAW,

Plaintiff,

V. Civil Action No. 04~1422 (PLF)

SONNY PER`DUB, Seeretary, United

States Department of Agricuiture,

Dei"endant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 'l`liis matter is before the Court on Defend.ant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony Regarding Marl< l~lendrici<son [Dkt. No. 191]. ri`he Court has carefully considered the motion, plaintiffs opposition, and defendant’s reply, as well as the supporting exhibits and relevant affidavits, declarations, and deposition excerpts in the record before the Court. "l`he Court has also reviewed its summary judgment opinion in this case, Bradshavv v. Vilsack, 102 F. Supp. 3d 327 (D.D.C. 2015), Because this Will be a bench trial, the Court need not make i"mal determinations on relevance, probative value, and prejudice until the trial itself or even after the conclusion ot` the trial. ln fairness to the plaintiff, therei"oi‘e, the Court Will not exclude testimony respecting plaintiffs conversations and interactions With Mai‘l< l-lendrici<son. To the extent that permitting such testimony potentially burdens third~party Witnesses, including Mr. Hendrickson or others no longer employed by defendant, the Court Wiil admit the relevant portions of prior depositions at trial. Furthermore, should either party request l\/Ir. I*Iendricl<son’s live testimony at trial, the Court Wili permit him to testify by video conference With those provisos, the Court Will deny the pendingr motion in limine. Aecordingiy, it is hereby

ORDERED that De'l"endant’s Motion in Limine [Dkt. No. 191] to Exclude Testimony Regarding Marl< Hendricl<son is DENIED.

SO ORDERED. @Z<»J;b~_/

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE; hal 9.\\ {'/1