Patricia McBreairty, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shawn McBreairty v. Brewer School Department, et al.

McBreairty · United States District Court for the District of Maine · March 20, 2026 · No. 1:24-cv-00053-JAW

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maine considers Plaintiff Patricia McBreairty’s motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence and testimony related to allegedly non-listed exhibits and witnesses. The court denies the motion as to witnesses and dismisses without prejudice the request to exclude exhibit categories identified in the defendants’ final pretrial memoranda, while deferring ruling on certain specific exhibits until trial. The court emphasizes the disclosure requirements and sanctions framework under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37.

Holdings

  1. The motion to exclude witnesses was denied because the witnesses identified by defendants had already been identified as trial witnesses or had long been known to be potential witnesses, so the requested exclusion was not warranted on the record presented.
  2. The motion was dismissed insofar as it sought wholesale exclusion of the categories of evidence identified in the defendants' final pretrial memoranda because the late disclosure was less prejudicial, the defendants demonstrated a need for the evidence, the public statements were accessible to the plaintiff, and the disclosure did not threaten delay.
  3. The motion was dismissed without prejudice as to defense exhibit numbers 9 and 21 because the court lacked sufficient information to determine how the defendants intended to use them and therefore deferred admissibility to trial.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether defendants should be barred from calling witnesses not identified in their initial disclosures.
  2. Whether defendants should be barred under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37 from introducing categories of exhibits identified in their final pretrial memoranda but not included in their initial disclosures.
  3. Whether the court could make a pretrial ruling excluding two specific exhibits when the record did not show how defendants intended to use them.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (5)

  • Santiago-Diaz v. Laboratorio Clinico Y De Referencia Del Este, 456 F.3d 272, 276 (1st Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • LaPlace-Bayard v. Batlle, 295 F.3d 157, 162 (1st Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Ortiz-Lopez v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo Y Beneficiencia de P.R., 248 F.3d 29, 34 (1st Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 590 F.3d 72, 78 (1st Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Doe v. Austin, No. 2:22-cv-00368-NT, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199423, *6 (D. Me. Nov. 1, 2024)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…