1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL DORMAN, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-cv-12552 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

 On June 22, 2022, the Court held the Final Pre-Trial Conference in this action. 

For the reasons explained on the record during that conference, the parties’ motions 

in limine are resolved as follows: 

 Plaintiffs’ motion to adjourn trial (ECF No. 134) is TERMINATED AS 

MOOT; 

 Plaintiffs’ motions in limine (ECF Nos. 140, 141, 142, 143, and 144) are 

GRANTED; 

 Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude testimony or documentary evidence 

of loss of use damages after the entry of the stipulated order on December 8, 

2017 (ECF No. 145), is DENIED; and 

 Defendant’s motion in limine to strike witnesses and exclude evidence (ECF 

No. 146) is GRANTED as described herein. Absent further order of the 

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 159, PageID.5669 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 3
2 

Court, Plaintiffs shall not call as witnesses or introduce into evidence as trial 

any witnesses or exhibits that were not disclosed during discovery and/or that 

were first disclosed in Plaintiffs’ Rule 26(a)(3) disclosures or Plaintiffs’ trail 

witness and exhibit lists. However, as the Court indicated on the record during 

the Final Pre-Trial Conference, the Court will give Plaintiffs an opportunity 

at trial to show that (1) any individual witness or any particular document was 

properly the subject of a timely supplementation under Rule 26(e) and/or 

could not reasonably have been disclosed to Defendant earlier than it was and 

(2) allowing Plaintiffs to present the witness(es) or document(s) would not 

unfairly prejudice the Defendant. 

 Finally, as the Court explained on the record when discussing the motions in 

limine, Plaintiffs shall be precluded from introducing evidence relating to any 

criminal proceedings brought against Plaintiffs related to the property at issue. 

As the Court explained, the First Amended Complaint does not contain any 

allegations or claims for damages arising out of those criminal proceedings, 

and those proceedings were not brought to the Court’s attention until after the 

close of discovery, briefing was complete on the parties’ summary judgment 

motions, and Court issued a comprehensive Opinion and Order resolving 

those motions. For those reasons, in 2020, the Court declined to permit 

Plaintiffs to conduct discovery into the criminal proceedings and denied 

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 159, PageID.5670 Filed 06/22/22 Page 2 of 3
3 

Plaintiffs permission to expand this lawsuit to include a claim for damages 

arising out of those proceedings. Likewise, Plaintiffs shall not be permitted 

to seek damages from Defendant based on alleged wrongs committed by the 

Defendant after the filing of the First Amended Complaint. Such alleged 

wrongs have not been made part of this action. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: June 22, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on June 22, 2022, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126

Case 2:15-cv-12552-MFL-DRG ECF No. 159, PageID.5671 Filed 06/22/22 Page 3 of 3