UNlTED STA"l"ES DISTRICT COURT
FOR 'l`HE DiS'i"RlCT OF COLUMBIA

 

RODNEY BRADSI*IAW,
Plaintiff,
V. Civil Action No. 04~1422 (PLF)

SONNY PER`DUB, Seeretary, United
States Department of Agricuiture,

Dei"endant.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

'l`liis matter is before the Court on Defend.ant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude
Testimony Regarding Marl< l~lendrici<son [Dkt. No. 191]. ri`he Court has carefully considered the
motion, plaintiffs opposition, and defendant’s reply, as well as the supporting exhibits and
relevant affidavits, declarations, and deposition excerpts in the record before the Court. "l`he
Court has also reviewed its summary judgment opinion in this case, Bradshavv v. Vilsack, 102 F.
Supp. 3d 327 (D.D.C. 2015),

Because this Will be a bench trial, the Court need not make i"mal determinations
on relevance, probative value, and prejudice until the trial itself or even after the conclusion ot`
the trial. ln fairness to the plaintiff, therei"oi‘e, the Court Will not exclude testimony respecting
plaintiffs conversations and interactions With Mai‘l< l-lendrici<son. To the extent that permitting
such testimony potentially burdens third~party Witnesses, including Mr. Hendrickson or others
no longer employed by defendant, the Court Wiil admit the relevant portions of prior depositions
at trial. Furthermore, should either party request l\/Ir. I*Iendricl<son’s live testimony at trial, the
Court Wili permit him to testify by video conference With those provisos, the Court Will deny

the pendingr motion in limine. Aecordingiy, it is hereby

ORDERED that De'l"endant’s Motion in Limine [Dkt. No. 191] to Exclude
Testimony Regarding Marl< Hendricl<son is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

@Z<»J;b~_/

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge

DATE; hal 9.\\ {'/1

