Doe v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 11, 2023
Docket3:18-cv-00586
StatusUnknown

This text of Doe v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education (Doe v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doe v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education, (W.D.N.C. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:18-cv-00586-RJC-DSC

JANE DOE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Order CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG BOARD OF ) EDUCATION and CITY OF CHARLOTTE, ) ) Defendants. ) )

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Parties’ motions in limine. (Doc. Nos. 229, 232, 239, 243, 244, 248, 252, 254, 255, 256, 258, 259). In the interest of providing the parties with the Court’s rulings ahead of trial, the Court below lists the Parties’ relevant filings by docket number, a summary of the request, and the Court’s ruling. I. OVERLAPPING REQUESTS

Doc. No. Request Ruling The Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Defendants’ requests are Plaintiff’s Request: The Court should admit GRANTED IN PART and DENIED testimony and records of prior instances of student IN PART. The Court will allow sexual assault and harassment reports at Myers Park evidence related to the Jill Roe and the High School (“MPHS”). S.B. incidents in 2014, subject to certain 244; 232; limitations. The testimony and other 239 Defendants’ Request: The Court should exclude evidence related to these incidents is evidence of other students’ claims or incidents of limited to substance of the reports of sexual misconduct at Myers Park High School or these incidents to Defendants CMS CMS schools. and/or the City and their employees, the receipt of such reports by Defendants and their employees, and Defendants and their employees’ acts or omissions Doc. No. Request Ruling in response to those reports. The Court will also allow evidence related to the Fall 2015 school assembly involving Principal Bosco.

During the presentation of this evidence the Court will be mindful of its obligations under Fed. R. Evid. 611 and its discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 403. As such, the Court may, on objection or sua sponte, exclude evidence if it becomes a waste of time, ineffective for the jury to determine the truth, causing harassment or undue embarrassment, cumulative, confusing, misleading, or if it is presented in a manner causing unfair prejudice.

The Court will not allow presentation of evidence regarding the G.B. incident in 2016. Fed. R. Evid. 401; Fed. R. Evid. 402; Fed. R. Evid. 403.

The Court will exclude the declarations Plaintiff seeks to admit as inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Additionally, the Court will exclude the deposition Plaintiff seeks to admit because Plaintiff did not file the testimony from Stacey Weinstein’s deposition in accordance with the requirements in the Court’s case management Order.

The Court will consider objections to any other specific evidence or testimony at trial. Plaintiff’s Request: The Court should admit evidence of the Internal Affairs Bureau (“IAB”) of Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department Defendant’s request is GRANTED. (“CMPD”) for School Resource Officer Bradley 243; 239 Fed. R. Evid. 401; Fed. R. Evid. 402; Leak. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

City’s Request: The Court should exclude evidence of Officer Bradley Leak’s prior IAB history. II. PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS

Doc. No. Request Ruling The Court should take the following protective measures during trial: (1) an admonishment to each and every witness called to the stand to abide by the Order by using (a) the designated pseudonyms for GRANTED IN PART. The Court will Ms. Doe and her family, and (b) the initials of former not admonish the witnesses called to the MPHS students; (2) require the Parties to redact all stand to abide by the Protective Order. personal identifying information of Ms. Doe and her 229 Instead, the lawyers are instructed to family in exhibits publicly displayed during the trial; admonish every witness they call to the and (3) to prohibit any photographs or unauthorized stand to abide by the Protective Order. recordings of Ms. Doe, her family members, or Otherwise, GRANTED. former MPHS student witnesses, as well as other efforts by the media (or any “citizen journalists” present) from publicizing their descriptions or otherwise seeking to identify them. The Court should exclude evidence or testimony concerning the CMPD IAB investigation and any subsequent findings made during the related Chain GRANTED. 248 of Command Review Board with respect to SRO Fed. R. Evid. 403. Leak’s conduct related to the incident involving Plaintiff. The Court should exclude evidence or testimony GRANTED. 252 regarding the criminal conviction of Jane Doe’s Fed. R. Evid. 609; Fed. R. Evid. 403. father, Mr. Doe, from 1998. The Court should exclude evidence or testimony regarding the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) Letter of Findings arising GRANTED. 254 out of the Title IX complaint Ms. Doe and her Fed. R. Evid. 403. parents filed against CMS in 2016, and any related evidence or testimony concerning the same. GRANTED. The Court is excluding The Court should exclude Stephanie McKinney, the OCR Findings, such that calling 255 CMS’s Title IX Coordinator, from testifying. Stephanie McKinney for Defendant’s requested purpose is unnecessary. The Court should exclude evidence or testimony DENIED. 256 regarding text messages between Ms. Doe and Q.W. Fed. R. Evid. 401; Fed. R. Evid. 402; exchanged prior to November 3, 2015. Fed. R. Evid. 801. The Court should instruct the jury that it may draw 258 adverse inferences against CMS and the City based DENIED. on their destruction and failure to preserve: Doc. No. Request Ruling  Security camera footage showing Q.W. and Ms. Doe on campus prior to the alleged kidnapping and sexual assault on Ms. Doe on November 3, 2015;  All investigative records and disciplinary files related to this event by AP Anthony Perkins—the administrator charged with investigating the incident;  All CMS’s disciplinary records for student sexual assault reports at MPHS and the adjacent woods prior to October 2016, which were routinely destroyed by officials; and  The audio recording of Detective Banner’s November 12, 2015 Interview with Jane Doe.

III. DEFENDANT CMS’S REQUESTS

Doc. No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller
596 U.S. 212 (Supreme Court, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Doe v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-charlotte-mecklenburg-board-of-education-ncwd-2023.