UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
`
`REBECCA BRZEG, )
` )
`Plaintiff, )
` )
`v. ) No. 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW
` )
`NATIONAL INDOOR RV CENTER, LLC, )
` )
`Defendant. )
`
`ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
`
`Currently pending before the Court are several pretrial motions filed by Plaintiff Rebecca
`Brzeg ("Brzeg") and Defendant National Indoor RV Center, LLC ("NIRVC"). In preparation for
`trial, this Order addresses Brzeg's Motion for Separation of Witnesses (Filing No. 92 ), Brzeg's
`Motion to Strike the Final Exhibit List ( Filing No. 73 ), NIRVC's Motion for Leave to File
`Amended Final Exhibit List ( Filing No. 81 ), NIRVC's Motion for Leave to File Statement of
`Defenses ( Filing No. 109), Brzeg's Motion in Limine ( Filing No. 86 ) and NIRVC's Motion in
`Limine ( Filing No. 94 ). Also pending is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
`regarding Brzeg's Motion to Enforce Settlement and Settlement Agreement ( Filing No. 104 ).
`Three motions remain under advisement and will be discussed at the October 29, 2025 final pretrial
`conference.
`A. Motion for Separation of Witnesses at Trial ( Filing No. 92)
`Brzeg filed a Motion for Separation of Witnesses ( Filing No. 92 ), and NIRVC filed no
`objection to the Motion. The Court grants the Motion. The parties are to instruct their witnesses
`to report to Room #346 of the Indianapolis courthouse during trial. The parties also are to instruct
`their witnesses to not discuss their testimony with others either before or after it is given.
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:
`882
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`B. Motion to Strike [56] Defendant's Final Exhibit List (Filing No. 73) and Motion for
`Leave to File Amended Final Exhibit List (Filing No. 81)
`The case management plan ("CMP") required the parties to file their final exhibit lists by
`May 19, 2025 (Filing No. 17 at 3). It specified that in the final exhibit list, parties "must precisely
`identify, preferably by Bates number, each specific document that may be offered at trial in this
`matter. . . . No document not expressly identified in the final exhibit list may be offered into
`evidence at trial." Id. (emphasis added). If the documents were not identified by Bates numbers,
`the Court required the party to "identify by date and description and include therein the number of
`pages of each document." Id. n.1.
`The CMP further specified that if a party identified a possible exhibit that may be used at
`trial after the deadline, that party "shall immediately file a motion for leave to amend their final . .
`. exhibit list, and shall identify therein when the . . . exhibit was first identified and explain why
`that . . . exhibit could not have been identified prior to the deadline." Id. at n.2.
`Brzeg and NIRVC filed their final exhibit lists by the May 19, 2025 deadline. However,
`NIRVC's Final Exhibit list (Filing No. 56
`) is overly broad and lack s the required specificity. The
`"final" exhibit list is in its entirety provides categories rather than specific documents:
`1. All communications and correspondences exchanged between Plaintiff and
`Defendant, or any of Defendant’s agents or employees, that relate in any way to Plaintiff’s
`claims against Defendant.
`2. All communications between Plaintiff and any third-party/non-party, including her
`medical providers, that relate in any way to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant.
`3. All of Plaintiff’s medical records and bills that relate in any way to Plaintiff’s
`claims against Defendant or Defendant’s defenses to the same.
`4. All documents that relate in any way to Plaintiff’s work performance while
`employed by Defendant.
`5. All documents that relate in any way to Plaintiff’s termination.
`6. All documents that relate in any way to Plaintiff’s alleged disabilities and treatment
`thereof.
`7. All documents that relate in any way to Plaintiff’s accommodation requests.
`8. All documents that relate in any way to Plaintiff’s FMLA requests.
`9. All documents submitted to or received from the EEOC by any party.
`10. Defendant’s employment policies and procedures.
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:
`883
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`11. Subject to any objections based on relevance or admissibility, documents identified
`by Plaintiff in his initial disclosures made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1).
`12. All documents produced by any third-party/non-party in this matter.
`
`(Filing No. 56 at 3
`).
`On September 3, 2025, attorney Tonya Bond ("Bond") entered an appearance for NIRVC
`(Filing No. 66 ). On September 12, Brzeg filed a Motion to Strike Defendant's final Exhibit List
`(Filing No. 73). Importantly, NIRVC filed no response to that Motion despite filing a response on
`another motion, and an appearance for another attorney during the response timeline .1 Per Local
`Rule 7-1(c)(3)(A), NIRVC's response was due within fourteen days after the Motion to Strike was
`filed, no later than September 26, 2025. NIRVC filed no response by the deadline and did not
`petition the Court for an extension of time to do so.
`On October 3, 2025—one month after Bond appeared—NIRVC filed its Motion for Leave
`to File an Amended Final Exhibit List ( Filing No. 81 ) with no explanation as to why it did not
`timely respond to the Motion to Strike and offering no good cause. The Court sympathizes with
`NIRVC's new counsel, however, given the unsatisfactory representation and prior admonishments
`issued to NIRVC's counsel Kelly Milam and Morgan Klutho, 2 the Court agrees with Brzeg that,
`here, NIRVC inexplicitly missed the deadline and has not shown good cause (Filing No. 82 at 3).
`Under Local Rule 7 -1 (c)(5), the Court may summarily rule on the motion because the
`opposing party did not file a response within the deadline. The Court does so now. The Final
`
`1 Steinbrueck appeared for NIRVC on September 24, 2025 (Filing No. 80).
`2 For example, On March 7, 2025, the Court ordered lead counsel for NIRVC, Kelly Milam, to show cause for her
`failure to appear for a telephonic status conference ( Filing No. 36). On April 16, 2025, the Court ordered NIRVC to
`show cause to address their efforts in this case and ordered lead counsel to attend the settlement conference in-person
`(Filing No. 43). On April 24, 2025, the Court issued an Order on Show Cause addressing counsel's lack of preparation,
`inattention to settlement offers, and disregard of Court Orders, including the failure to attend the settlement conference
`on April 17, 2025 ( Filing No. 46). The Court also required counsel to file a verification that she reviewed the Local
`Rules and all orders entered in this case (Filing No. 46 at 5).
`
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:
`884
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Exhibit List filed by NIRVC clearly lacks the required precision under the case management plan.
`Therefore, Brzeg's Motion to Strike Defendant's Final Exhibit List is granted.
`As for NIRCV's request to file a belated amended exhibit list, for the reasons explained
`below, the Court declines to afford NIRCV this opportunity. "This lawsuit did not start fresh when
`[NIRVC] obtained new counsel. To the contrary, [its] obligations under the case management plan
`remained ongoing, and the hole [it] dug for [it]sel[f] through [its] early inactivity was not backfilled
`by [new counsel]'s appearance." Order Denying Motions for Leave to Belatedly Amend Their Final
`Witness and Exhibit Lists at 6, Craig v. Cornerstone Trading Grp., LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01575 (S.D.
`Ind. Oct. 9, 2025). NIRVC's previous counsel undoubtedly put NIRVC in a hole, but the proper
`remedy is a malpractice action against its attorneys , not shifting the burden to the opposing party
`and the Court . See Tango Music, L.L.C. v. Dead Quick Music , Inc., 348 F.3d 244, 247 (7th Cir.
`2003).
`Importantly, NIRVC did not follow the Court's detailed instructions for filing a motion to
`belatedly amend an exhibit list (Filing No. 17 at n.2 ). NIRVC did not immediately file a motion
`for leave to amend when new counsel appeared. Rather, it waited thirty days to file a motion and
`only filed it after neglecting to respond to the Motion to Strike. A second appearance by attorney
`Kyle Steinbrueck was filed two days before the response deadline, yet NIRVC did not request any
`extensions or file a response to the Motion to Strike at that time. Importantly, NIRVC'S request to
`file an amended witness list is not supported by good caus e. The Motion fails to state when the
`exhibits were first identified and it does not assert any good cause for failing to identify exhibits
`by the May 19, 2025 deadline. As Brzeg emphasizes, this Court previously declared in this case—
`because of NIRVC's conduct—that "Court orders are not suggestions; they are intended to move
`the case in an organized fashion toward trial." (Filing No. 46 at 1).
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:
`885
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`The Court is unpersuaded by NIRVC's assertion that Brzeg will not suffer prejudice if the
`Court allows the belated filing (Filing No. 81 ¶ 5). This matter remains scheduled for jury trial on
`November 17, 2025. Neither party has requested a continuance of the trial date. The Court agrees
`with Brzeg that the broad and generalized categories of documents in NIRVC's Final Exhibit List
`do not even remotely place Brzeg on notice of what specific exhibits it might use at tria l (Filing
`No. 82 at 5). Granting NIRVC's request on the eve of trial would cer tainly prejudice Brzeg's trial
`preparation. As Brzeg points out, the Motion to Amend was filed only three business days before
`the first round of required pretrial filings. Accordingly, NIRVC's Motion for Leave to belatedly
`file an Amended Final Exhibit List is denied.
`C. Motion for Leave to File Statement of Defenses (Filing No. 109)
`NIRVC also failed to file its statement of defenses on time. NIRVC filed a Motion for
`Leave to belatedly file its statement of defenses ( Filing No. 109 ). The case management plan
`directed the parties with the burden of proof to file a statement of claims or defenses that they
`intend to prove at trial by March 25, 2025 (Filing No. 17 at 5). Brzeg filed her statement of claims
`on March 25, 2025. NIRVC did not file a statement of defenses by the deadline. Brzeg argues that
`NIRVC should not be permitted to file its statement of defenses because Defendant’s actions in
`this matter have not legitimately placed Plaintiff on notice of the defenses for which it bears the
`burden of proof (Filing No. 113 at 5).
`NIRVC argues that its position is not a surprise to Brzeg because there is a synopsis of
`Defendant's Statement of Claims in the case management plan, NIRVC explained its position in
`discovery responses, and NIRVC relied on its defenses in the administrative proceedings prior to
`the lawsuit (Filing No. 109 at ¶ 7
`). While Brzeg's arguments about the lack of apology and good
`cause are well taken, the Court agrees with NIRVC and concludes that it is in the interest of justice
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:
`886
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`to permit NIRVC to file their belated statement of defenses. See Wash. Frontier League Baseball,
`LLC v. Zimmerman, No. 1:14-cv-01862-TWP-DML, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106108, at *3–4 (S.D.
`Ind. June 26, 2018) . The defenses listed in Defendant NIRVC's Statement of Defenses are not a
`surprise to Brzeg, because NIRVC advanced the arguments throughout the litigation, and asserted
`them in its Answer (Filing No. 15 at 17–18).
`Contrary to Brzeg's assertion that NIRVC's failure to file a statement of defenses resulted
`in the abandonment of those defenses, ( Filing No. 113 at 4 –5), this Court has not consistently
`found waiver based on a failure to file a statement of claims or defenses and declines to do so here.
`Bowling v. Netflix, Inc., 752 F. Supp. 3d 1053, 1084 (S.D. Ind. 2024); see also Parker v. Brooks
`Life Science, Inc., No. 19-cv-4796, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138562, 2021 WL 3140768, at *9 (S.D.
`Ind. July 26, 2021) (listing cases).
`Brzeg specifically argues that the Answer did not put her on notice of NIRVC's intent to
`rely on a good faith exception to liquidated damages (Filing No. 113 at 4). Because the exception
`is to be determined by the Court following the award of damages, the Court will allow NIRVC to
`file the Statement of Defenses and the parties may brief the good faith exception to liquidated
`damages issue later should the need arise . If this matter goes to jury trial and the jury returns a
`verdict in favor of Brzeg on the FMLA claim, Brzeg may renew her motion to preclude evidence
`on a good faith exception to liquidated damages at an evidentiary hearing following the verdict.
`The Court determines that Brzeg will not be prejudiced by the late filing of the statement
`of defenses, and the statement will be helpful to the Court for the orderly progression of the case
`during trial. Therefore, NIRVC's Motion for Leave to File Statement of Defenses (Filing No. 109),
`is granted and the Notice of Defenses ( Filing No. 109-1 ) is deemed filed as of the date of this
`Order.
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:
`887
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`D. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Filing No. 86)
`Brzeg filed a Motion in Limine, seeking to exclude certain evidence from trial (Filing No.
`86). S he seeks to exclude evidence relating to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
`("EEOC") findings, NIRVC's defenses, and exhibits not expressly identified in NIRVC's Final
`Exhibit List. NIRVC objects to all of Brzeg's Motions in Limine (Filing No. 108).
`The Court has "broad discretion in ruling on evidentiary questions during trial or before on
`motions in limine." Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002). The Court
`excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly is not admissible for any
`purpose. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill.
`1993). Unless evidence meets this exacting standard, evidentiary rulings must be deferred until
`trial so questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice may be resolved in context. Id. at 1400-
`01. Moreover, denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence
`contemplated by the motion is admissible; rather, it only means that, at the pretrial stage, the Court
`is unable to determine whether the evidence should be excluded. Id. at 1401.
`1. EEOC Determination, Findings, and Dismissal
`The EEOC issued a determination on Brzeg's charge of discrimination prior to the filing of
`this lawsuit. The charge stated that it would not proceed with the investigation . Notably, the
`determination also states that this does not mean the claims have no merit and it does not certify
`that NIRVC is in compliance with the statutes (Filing No. 87 at 4; Filing No. 108-1).
`Brzeg moves to preclude evidence relating to the EEOC determination, findings, and
`dismissal. She argues that the evidence is not relevant, and even if it were relevant, it would still
`be inadmissible because its minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that
`it will unfairly prejudice Brzeg's case or confuse or mislead the jury (Filing No. 87 at 4
`). NIRVC
`argues that because the EEOC did not make a determination on any element of the case, it does
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:
`888
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`not prejudice either side (Filing No. 108 at 2 ). Yet, NIRVC also asserts that EEOC's decision not
`to move forward supports its defense that it did not act in a malicious or reckless manner. Id.
`A "jury cannot determine the proper weight of an EEOC determination of reasonable cause
`without knowing the evidence an EEOC investigator utilized to make his or her determination and
`whether that evidence is admissible in court." Silverman v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi., 637 F.3d
`729, 733 (7th Cir. 2011). "That sort of effort will rarely add much to the probative value of the
`admissible evidence that is actually submitted to the court or jury for a de novo decision on the
`merits." 637 F.3d at 733; see also Tulloss v. Near N. Montessori Sch., Inc., 776 F.2d 150, 154–55
`(7th Cir. 1985) (concluding that it is not error to exclude the EEOC file to ensure an independent
`determination of the facts by the court due to the prejudicial and inadmissible contents of the file).
`The Court therefore agrees with Brzeg that the EEOC determination hold s little probative value,
`and that value is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice and confusion to the jury.
`NIRVC also asserts that the EEOC investigation itself is important because it shows Brzeg's
`intent and state of mind. Id. at 4. NIRVC can introduce relevant evidence independent from the
`EEOC determination to show Brzeg's intent and state of mind. Therefore, the Court grants Brzeg's
`second Motion in Limine as it relates to evidence of the EEOC determination, findings, and
`dismissal.
`2. Defendant's Defenses
`Brzeg asks the Court to exclude evidence, both documentary and testimonial, about any
`affirmative or other defenses for which NIRVC bears the burden of proof at trial (Filing No. 87 at
`6). B rzeg makes this request because NIRVC failed to timely file a Statement of Defenses as
`required by the case management plan. She argues that NIRVC has abandoned any right to present
`affirmative and other defenses at trial for which it has the burden of proof.
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:
`889
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Although its filing w as untimely, NIRVC did include affirmative defenses with their
`Answer to the Complaint, and Brzeg has not been prejudiced by its failure to file a Statement of
`Defenses. NIRVC filed a separate Motion for Leave to File Statement of Defenses, which the Court
`addressed above. Based on the Court's resolution of the Motion for Leave to File Statement of
`Defenses, the Court determines that an order in limine excluding evidence or argument about
`affirmative defenses is not warranted. The Motion is denied.
`3. Exhibits Not Identified in Defendant's Final Exhibit List
`Brzeg seeks to exclude documents and exhibits not expressly identified in Defendant's
`Final Exhibit List. Consistent with the Court's ruling above on the Motion for Leave to File an
`Amended Exhibit List (Filing No. 81), the Motion in Limine on this issue is granted.
`For the reasons stated above, Brzeg's Motion in Limine (Filing No. 86) is granted in part
`and denied in part.
`E. Defendant's Motion in Limine (Filing No. 94)
`NIRVC filed a Motion in Limine (Filing No. 94 ), seeking to exclude expert testimony ,
`statements from doctors, privileged communications, Indiana Department of Workforce
`Development records and decisions, statements in an exhibit titled "Accolades", and evidence of
`a settlement agreement.
`1. E xpert Testimony and Opinion
`NIRVC moves to prohibit Brzeg from introducing any expert testimony at trial and eliciting
`opinion testimony ( Filing No. 94 at 2 ). Brzeg responds that it does not intend to proffer any
`testimony or opinion testimony by an expert in this case (Filing No. 105 at ¶ 1). Brzeg does intend
`to offer her opinion on several matters including why she sought medical treatment for her
`disability or serious health condition, why she asked for reasonable accommodations from
`Defendant, why she complained to Defendant about an employee not complying with her
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:
`890
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`requested reasonable accommodations, and how the termination caused her to suffer emotional
`distress. Id. This proffered testimony is permissible.
`Brzeg may "testify about [her] personal knowledge of [her] own medical conditions and
`any physical symptoms [s]he experiences. . . . Moreover, [ she] can testify to h [er] own opinions
`that are based on h [er] personal experience and perceptions. . . . [ She] need not seek permission
`before offering this testimony." See, e.g., Cherrone v. Carter, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 260801, 2020
`WL 12752818, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 17, 2020) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 602 and 701). NIRVC may
`object at trial to specific testimony by Brzeg if it is based on scientific, technical, or specialized
`knowledge. Id.; see also Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`NIRVC's Motion in Limine on this issue is granted such that Brzeg cannot present expert
`testimony or opinion testimony by an expert, but her lay testimony is permitted.
`2. Statements in Dr. Khan's Letters
`NIRVC moves to prohibit Brzeg from using statements contained in letters from Dr. Khan
`to be offered for the truth of the matters asserted. NIRVC argues that they are inadmissible hearsay
`and no exception to the rule applies ( Filing No. 94 at 5 ). Brzeg contends that the purpose of the
`letters and the testimony related thereto is to show the effect of the letters on the decision-making
`processes and actions (Filing No. 105 at 2). Brzeg has identified a permissible, non-hearsay use of
`the out-of-court statements. NIRVC has not shown that the statement s are clearly not admissible
`for any purpose, so their request to exclude those statements is denied.
`The Court need not, and does not, address whether the statements would be admissible for
`any of the reasons asserted by Brzeg. Determinations about the admissibility of specific statements
`on particular bases are better made in the context of trial.
`3. Healthcare Provider Statements to Brzeg
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 10 of 14 PageID
`#: 891
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`NIRVC moves to prohibit Brzeg from testifying about what her healthcare providers told
`her. Like its argument about the statements in Dr. Khan's letters, NIRVC argues that Plaintiff cannot
`testify about what her healthcare providers told her because those statements violate the rule
`against hearsay, and no exceptions exist (Filing No. 94 at 6).
`While healthcare providers statements out of court are hearsay, they are often admissible
`under Fed. R. Evid. 803(4), the hearsay exception for a statement that "is made for —and is
`reasonably pertinent to—medical diagnosis" or "describes medical history; past or present
`symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause." Given this exception, the Court
`declines to rule that all out of court statements to Brzeg by her healthcare providers are
`inadmissible hearsay. NIRVC's Motion on this issue is denied.
`4. Ms. Gebert's Privileged Communications Regarding Termination
`Defendant moves to preclude Plaintiff from questioning Defendant’s General Counsel,
`Julie Davis Gebert, about protected communications regarding Plaintiff’s termination. Ms. Brez g
`has no objection (Filing No. 105 at 4). The Motion in Limine is granted.
`5. Records and Decisions of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development
`NIRVC moves to exclude records and decisions of the Indiana Department of Workforce
`Development ("IDWD"). It argues that the IDWD decided whether Brzeg was terminated for "just
`cause" under Indiana law which is irrelevant to the determination that an employer violated the
`ADA or the FMLA ( Filing No. 94 at 9
`). Brzeg does not object to the exclusion of the decisions
`made by the IDWD (Filing No. 105 at 4). She does object to the exclusion of the sworn statements
`and recordings for impeachment purposes should the defendant witnesses testify inconsistently at
`trial. Id. at 4–5.
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 11 of 14 PageID
`#: 892
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`The Court agrees with NIRVC that the IDWD decision should be excluded—largely f or
`the same reason s the Court exclude d the determination of the EEOC —because there is no
`probative value beyond what the parties can present on their own (Filing No. 94 at 10 citing Young
`v. James Green Mgmt., Inc., 327 F.3d 616, 624 (7th Cir. 2003) ). NIRVC's Motion in Limine is
`granted with respect to the decision of the IDWD.
`If Brzeg wishes to use evidence of NIRVC's witnesses' contradictory statements in the
`IDWD proceedings for impeachment purposes, or if she believes another permissible use of the
`IDWD evidence has arisen during trial, she may request a bench conference and a preliminary
`ruling from the Court.
`6. "Accolades" Document
`NIRVC moves to prohibit Brzeg from using statements contained in her " Accolades"
`document to be offered for the truth of the matters asserted. Brzeg argues she is not offering the
`document for the matter of the truth asserted therein but as part of her request for a performance
`review (Filing No. 105 at 7). She further argues that the email and attachment are one and should
`not be separated, since Plaintiff submitted the email and attachment to NIRVC employees as one
`complete document within the scope of her employment. Id. The copied statements from various
`sources are hearsay, and Brzeg has not identified an exception to the rule against hearsay. NIRVC's
`Motion in Limine is granted with respect to the Accolades document.
`7. A lleged Settlement
`NIRVC moves to prohibit Plaintiff from discussing the alleged settlement that is the subject
`of her Motion to Enforce. Brzeg has no objection (Filing No. 105 at 7). The Motion in Limine on
`this issue is granted.
`
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 12 of 14 PageID
`#: 893
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`F. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
` On October 14, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation on
`Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Settlement and Settlement Agreement ( Filing No. 104 ). For the
`reasons explained in a separate Order, the Recommendation is adopted and Plaintiff's Motion to
`Enforce Settlement and Settlement Agreement (Filing No. 62) is denied.
`CONCLUSION
`For the reasons discussed above, Brzeg 's Motion to Strike [56] Defendant's Final Exhibit
`List (Filing No. 73) is GRANTED and Filing No. 56 is STRICKEN from the record. NIRVC's
`Motion for Leave to File Amended Final Exhibit List (Filing No. 81) is DENIED. NIRVC's Motion
`for Leave to File Statement of Defenses ( Filing No. 109 ) is GRANTED, and the Notice of
`Defenses (Filing No. 109-1) is deemed filed as of the date of this Order.
`The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding Brzeg's Motion to Enforce
`Settlement and Settlement Agreement ( Filing No. 104 ) is ADOPTED and Brzeg's Motion to
`Enforce Settlement and Settlement Agreement (Filing No. 62) is DENIED.
`Brzeg's Motion in Limine (Filing No. 86 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part .
`NIRVC's Motion in Limine (Filing No. 94) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
`The Motion for Leave to Withdraw ( Filing No. 67 ), the Motion to Withdraw Attorney
`Appearance ( Filing No. 75), and Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees (Filing No. 121 )
`remain under advisement. The parties' objections will be discussed at the final pretrial conference
`on Wednesday, October 29 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 344.
`An order in limine is not a final, appealable order. If the parties believe that evidence
`excluded by this Order becomes relevant or otherwise admissible during the course of the trial,
`counsel may request a hearing outside the presence of the jury. Likewise, if the parties believe that
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 13 of 14 PageID
`#: 894
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`specific evidence is inadmissible during the course of the trial, counsel may raise specific
`objections to that evidence at the appropriate time.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Date: 10/29/2025
`
`
`
`
`Distribution:
`
`Tonya J. Bond
`Plews Shadley Racher Braun LLP
`tbond@psrb.com
`
`Morgan Klutho
`Gordon Ress Scully Mansukhani
`mklutho@grsm.com
`
`Shannon L. Melton
`Wilson Melton, LLC
`smelton@wilsonmelton.com
`
`Kelly V . Milam
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`kmilam@grsm.com
`
`Kyle D. Steinbrueck
`PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN LLP
`ksteinbrueck@psrb.com
`
`Bradley L. Wilson
`Wilson Melton, LLC
`bwilson@wilsonmelton.com
`
`Case 1:24-cv-00491-TWP-CSW Document 126 Filed 10/29/25 Page 14 of 14 PageID
`#: 895
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`