Require That Such Evidence Be Heard Outside the Presence of the Jury. Plaintiff's failure to object

during trial will be deemed a waiver of the objection.

oa biped, 4 2003

JOHN W. DARRAH
United States District Judge


to Bar Witnesses Not Previously Identified By the Defendant is denied in part and taken under
advisement in part.
Defendant’s Motions In Limine

Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding the Determination of the
Mlinois Department of Employment Security is granted. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude
Evidence That Baxter Discharged Pat Sheehan and Gave Negative Performance Evaluations to
Various Employees Who Are Not Similarly Situated is granted as to Pat Sheehan.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony and Documents that Baxter Discharged
and/or Gave Negative Performance Evaluations to Walter Casten, Nicholas Kiricich,
Richard Bowman, and Brent Wentz is denied. This evidence is relevant and admissible under the
indirect method of proof of age discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
792, 803 (1973); Riordan y. Kempiners, 831 F.2d 697 (7th Cir. 1987); Hunter v. Alice Chalmers
Corp., 797 F.2d 1417, 1423-24 (7" Cir. 1986).

The following Defendant's Motions in Limine are denied without prejudice to the movant
to raise the same objection at the appropriate time during trial: to Bar Plaintiff From Referring to a
Pattern of Age Discrimination, Practice of Age Discrimination, or Systemic Age Discrimination; to
Exclude Evidence Regarding Stray Remarks Made by Non-Decision Makers That are Unrelated to
Baxter's Decisions Regarding Plaintiff's Employment; to Exclude Evidence Regarding
Marla Persky’s and Michael Schiffer’s Stray Remarks Unrelated to Their Decision Regarding
Plaintiff's Employment; to Exclude Evidence Regarding Timothy Malloy’s Opinion of Plaintiff's
Performance and Plaintiff's Ability to Be Hired; to Exclude Evidence Regarding Plaintiff's

Retirement Points; and to Exclude Evidence Regarding Lost Future Earnings and Front Pay or


Minute Order Foray (06/97)

i
«tl

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Pay

(11)

ver Magia udge John W. Darrah “(han Auigved Judge

CASE NUMBER 02 C 3283 DATE 11/4/2003

CASE Mattenson vs. Baxter Healthcare

TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due ___.
@) Oo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue__.
(4) o Ruling/Hearingon___—sset for___—_at
(5) im Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__—_at.
© a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___——ssetfor_ ss at_
(7) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on___—_ at
(8) aq [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to saat
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a\(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

(do) [Other docket entry) Trial begins - jury. Jury trial held and continued to 11/5/03 at 9:45 a.m.

Plaintiff's motion to compel compliance with subpoena is granted. For the reasons stated in the attached
Memorandum opinion and order, plaintiff's motion in limine are granted in part and denied in part and
taken under advisement in part. Defendant’s motion in limine are granted in part and denied in part. Enter
Memorandum Opinion and Order.

(For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff,

Notified counsel by tetephone.

Docketing to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

a'o8

cy tO
courtroom gre ,
mm ne

jp \Date/time received in
ce tenirtt’Clerk's Office mailing deputy winks



L. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Deer:
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS vl. TED

EASTERN DIVISION NOV 0.5 2003

CHARLES R. MATTENSON,
Plaintiff, No. 02 C 3283

y. Judge John W. Darrah

BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION,

wwe weer re eww

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff and Defendant have filed numerous Motions in Limine. As discussed below,
Plaintiff's Motions in Limine are granted in part, denied in part, and taken under advisement in part.
Defendant’s Motions in Limine are granted in part and denied in part.
Evidence is excluded on a motion in limine only if the evidence is clearly inadmissible for
any purpose. Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Tech., Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993)
(Hawthorne). “This court has the power to exclude evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly
inadmissible on all potential grounds. . . . Unless evidence meets this high standard, evidentiary
rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy and potential
prejudice may be resolved in proper context. . . . Denial of a motion in Jimine [in this order] does not
necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion will be admitted at trial. Denial
merely means that, without the context of trial, the court is unable to determine whether the evidence
in question should be excluded. The court will entertain objections on individual proffers as they
arise at trial, even though the proffer falls within the scope of a denied motion in limine.” Hawthorn,

831 F. Supp. at 1400-01 (internal citations omitted).

2


- Plaintiff's Motions in Limine

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Tax Returns is granted. Plaintiff's Motion
in Limine to Exclude All Evidence at Trial of Plaintiff's Job Performance Prior to 2001 and Motion
in Limine to Exclude All Documents Not Produced in Discovery or Persons With Knowledge Not
Named From Testifying in This Cause are denied without prejudice to the movant to raise the same
objection at the appropriate time during trial. Defendant’s failure to object during trial will be
deemed a waiver of these objections.

Plaintiff's Motion In Limine to Bar Witnesses Not Previously Identified By the Defendant
is denied in part and taken under advisement in part. Plaintiff seeks to exclude the testimony of
nineteen individuals that Defendant named as potential witnesses on August 5, 2003, who were not
previously named in Defendant’s Rule 26(a) disclosure or any update to such disclosure.

The duty to supplement initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) is
satisfied when the other party learns of witnesses during discovery, including depositions and written
discovery responses, See Weiland v. Linear Construction, Ltd., 2002 WL 31307622 (N.D. IH. Oct
15, 2002). Here, Plaintiff has taken the deposition of six of the nineteen people that Defendant
named on August 5, 2003. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine as to these six individuals is
overruled. As to the remaining thirteen individuals, Defendant is ordered to disclose which of the
remaining thirteen individuals that Defendant is going to call at trial. Defendant is also ordered to
provide evidence demonstrating that those witnesses that he is going to call at trial were timely
disclosed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff may file a response to Defendant’s list of witnesses and evidence

demonstrating that such witnesses were timely disclosed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine