Acosta v. Muskegon Heights, City of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SOLANGIE ACOSTA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MUSKEGON HEIGHTS, CITY OF, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:23-cv-972
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The final pretrial conference in this matter is scheduled for March 23, 2026 (Trial Case
Management Order, ECF No. 96). 	On March 16, 2026, the parties filed a Proposed Joint Final
Pretrial Order (ECF No. 133). The parties have lodged dozens of cursory objections to exhibits
offered by the opposing party, despite the Court entertaining two previous rounds of motions in
limine. The parties will be required to explain the basis for these objections at the Final Pretrial
Conference. A number of the parties’ objections appear to be frivolous.
The Court will order the parties to meet and confer prior to 5 p.m. on Friday, March 20,
2026, to determine whether they can agree on the admissibility of any of these exhibits or whether
they will agree to withdraw any exhibits to which valid objections have been raised. The Court
will also order the parties to submit a concise written response to any remaining objections that
the parties are unable to resolve. 	The Court will further order Acosta to explain, in her
supplemental brief responding to Defendants’ objections to her exhibits, the basis for her request
to admit two recordings of Acosta’s own prior, out-of-court statements—approaching two hours
in length and in their totality—without excerpting relevant and non-cumulative portions of those
Case 1:23-cv-00972-JMB-SJB ECF No. 138, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/19/26 Page
1 of 2

videos (see MIL Op. & Or., ECF No. 121 at PageID.1938–1939) (“Acosta shall identify with
particularity any portions of [the] recordings that she seeks to introduce at trial for non-
impeachment purposes in the exhibit list filings required by the Court’s Trial Case Management
Order, providing relevant time stamps for the portions of the recordings at issue. If Acosta fails to
identify her proposed trial exhibits with time stamps, the Court may exercise its discretion to
exclude them. Cf. U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:20-CV-04624,
2023 WL 1070245, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 27, 2023) (citing FED.R.CIV. P. 37(c)(1)).”)).
Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer to resolve the
objections lodged in the Proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order (ECF No. 133) prior to March 20,
2026, at 5 p.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall respond in writing to the objections
lodged by the opposing party as to the admissibility of their trial exhibits, and Acosta shall explain
the basis for her request to admit the recordings identified above, in supplemental briefs submitted
not later than March 20, 2026, at 7 p.m.
Dated: March 19, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:23-cv-00972-JMB-SJB ECF No. 138, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/19/26 Page
2 of 2