Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Stephenson Murphy
-
Motion | Filed: April 29, 2024 | Entered: April 29, 2024 Carter v. Ascend Performance Materials Holdings, Inc. et. al.
Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act | South Carolina
Reconsideration
MOTION for Reconsideration re 162 Order on Motion for Reconsideration,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by Ascend Performance Materials Holdings Inc, Ascend Performance Materials Operations, LLC. Response to Motion due by 5/13/2024. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.(Gantt-Sorenson, Christine)
-
Order | Filed: April 29, 2024 | Entered: April 29, 2024 Carter v. Ascend Performance Materials Holdings, Inc. et. al.
Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act | South Carolina
Order on Motion in Limine
TEXT ORDER GRANTING 123 MOTION IN LIMINE. Defendants filed a motion in limine, requesting an order excluding testimony, references, or argument to the following: (1) that their contact with Plaintiff's physical therapist's office about Plaintiff's attendance was wrong, improper, or illegal; (2) that their receipt of attendance information or proof of Carter's discharge from physical therapy was wrong, improper, or illegal; and (3) that they should not have contacted or received physical therapy attendance information or proof of Carter's discharge from physical therapy. (ECF No. 123 ).
In her response, (ECF No. 132 ), Plaintiff agrees the information sought to be excluded by this motion is covered by the court's dismissal of her unlawful medical inquiry claim, and, thus, she has no intention of asking about these issues. Plaintiff provides she also will not argue that Defendants' contacts with the physical therapist violate the medical inquiries provisions of the ADA. Id. Accordingly, as the parties consent to the exclusion of the information sought to be excluded under this motion, the court GRANTS this motion in limine at ECF No. 123 . The parties are reminded that any ruling on a motion in limine is a preliminary ruling subject to review and revision based on developments at trial or the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 42 (1964). IT IS SO ORDERED. Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M Cain on 4/29/24.(kmca)
-
Order | Filed: April 29, 2024 | Entered: April 29, 2024 Carter v. Ascend Performance Materials Holdings, Inc. et. al.
Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act | South Carolina
Order on Motion in Limine
TEXT ORDER DENYING 124 MOTION IN LIMINE. Defendants filed a motion in limine, seeking an order excluding any testimony, references, or argument to the following: (1) that Dr. Dan Robinson's opinion about Plaintiff's reinstatement or return to work was wrong or improper or illegal; (2) that Dr. Robinson's opinion on whether Plaintiff was fit for duty to be reinstated or to return to work was wrong, improper, or illegal; and (3) that Defendant's reliance on Dr. Robinson's opinion on reinstatement was wrong, improper, or illegal. (ECF No. 124 ). Defendants contend Plaintiff's claims based on the denial of reinstatement were already dismissed on summary judgment. Accordingly, they request the court bar Plaintiff "from making any reference or suggestion that Dr. Dan Robinson's opinion regarding the plaintiff's reinstatement - or that Ascend's reliance on such opinion - was wrong or improper, as this Court has already dismissed Plaintiff's claims that were premised on the denial of reinstatement, and such testimony or argument is not relevant to the plaintiff's remaining claims...." (ECF No. 124 at 3).
However, following the filing of this motion, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the court's ruling on her ADA reinstatement cause of action. (ECF No. 150 ). For the reasons set forth in its order at ECF No. 162 , the court granted the motion, and reinstated the claim. Therefore, as the crux of this motion hinges on the court's previous dismissal of a claim that has now been reinstated, the court DENIES the motion in limine at ECF No. 124 . The parties are reminded that any ruling on a motion in limine is a preliminary ruling subject to review and revision based on developments at trial or the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 42 (1964). IT IS SO ORDERED. Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M Cain on 4/29/24.(kmca)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login