Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA __________________________________________
NICOLE BOLDER, :
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Civil No. 5:23-cv-05138-JMG
:
OFFICER THOMAS BRECKER, :
Defendant. :
__________________________________________
ORDER
AND NOW , this 31 st day of October, 2025, as follows: 1. Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Strike and/or Motion in Limine to preclude Dr. John Peyton (ECF No. 58), Plaintiff’s Opposition (ECF No. 69), the parties’ responses to the Court’s request to show cause (ECF Nos. 72-73), and the parties’ arguments at the Final Pretrial Conference held on October 29, 2025, that Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 58) is GRANTED . Dr. Peyton is from testifying at trial. Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Strike and/or Motion in Limine to partially preclude Larry Rotenberg, M.D. (ECF No. 59), Plaintiff’s Opposition (ECF No. 71), the parties’ responses to the Court’s request to show cause (ECF Nos. 72-73), and the parties’ arguments at the Final Pretrial Conference, that Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 59) is as untimely. Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to partially preclude Darrin
Porcher, Ed.D. (ECF No. 57), Plaintiff’s Opposition (ECF No. 70), the parties’ responses to the Court’s request to show cause (ECF Nos. 72-73), and the parties’ arguments at the Final Pretrial *2 Conference, that Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 57) is DENIED as untimely. Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to partially preclude Stephen
Mechanick, M.D. (ECF No. 65), Defendant’s Opposition (ECF No. 68), the parties’ responses to the Court’s request to show cause (ECF Nos. 72-73), and the parties’ arguments at the Final Pretrial Conference, that Plaintiff ’s Motion (ECF No. 65) is as untimely. Upon the Court’s sua sponte review of Dr. Rotenberg’s expert report (ECF No.
59-2), the parties’ untimely briefings on the same (ECF Nos. 59, 71), and the parties’ arguments at the Final Pretrial Conference, that Dr. Rotenberg is from testifying to the following:
a. “Instead, he treated her as a second class citizen, a criminal, and even as she says ‘an animal.’”
b. “[Plaintiff’s] conviction that had she been white, she would have had different treatment, seems plausible.”
c. “Her pathetic state, in the cold, with her therapy dog locked in her car, seemingly drew sympathy from the tow truck driver.” d. “But not from officer Brecker, who threatened to arrest her, and in the process of these threats, used vulgar language in addressing her and used racially stereotyped comments.”
e. “Officer's Brecker's attempt at undoing what he had done and said, was too little and too late.”
Dr. Rotenberg is otherwise qualified, and his remaining opinions are ADMITTED . *3 Upon the Court’s sua sponte review of Dr. Porcher’s expert report (ECF No. 57-2),
the parties’ untimely briefings on the same (ECF Nos. 57, 70), and the parties’ arguments at the Final Pretrial Conference, that Dr. Porcher is from testifying at trial. Upon the Court’s sua sponte review of Dr. Mechanick’s expert report (ECF No. 65-
4), the parties’ untimely briefings on the same (ECF Nos. 65, 68), and the parties’ arguments at the Final Pretrial Conference, that Dr. Mechanick is ADMITTED to testify at trial.
BY THE COURT: /s/ John M. Gallagher JOHN M. GALLAGHER United States District Court Judge