MCBREAIRTY v. BREWER SCHOOL DEPARTMENT et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
PATRICIA MCBREAIRTY, as 	)
Personal Representative of the Estate 	)
Of Shawn McBreairty, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:24-cv-00053-JAW
)
BREWER SCHOOL DEPARTMENT, et al. 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES
In anticipation of trial, the defendants filed a motion in limine seeking an order
excluding evidence of punitive damages from trial and granting judgment as a matter
of law in the defendants’ favor on the plaintiff’s punitive damages claims. 	Because
the court does not have a sufficient record on which evidence the defendants seek to
exclude the portion of the motion seeking to exclude evidence of punitive damages
from the trial on liability is dismissed without prejudice; likewise, the portion of the
motion seeking judgment as a matter of law is premature and is thus dismissed
without prejudice.
I. 	PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2024, Shawn McBreairty filed a verified complaint against
Defendants Brewer School Department and Brewer Superintendent Gregg Palmer
(collectively, Defendants) alleging that, by threating litigation in response to an
article he authored and posted concerning a transgender student’s access to the girl’s
Case 1:24-cv-00053-JAW Document 253 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
bathroom at Brewer High School, Defendants violated his First Amendment Rights.
Verified Comp. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Compl. for Declaratory, Inj. Relief, and Damages at
1, ¶¶ 46-78 (ECF No. 1) (Compl.).1 Shawn McBreairty’s complaint sets fourth three
causes of action; two remain: (1) retaliation against the exercise of First Amendment
rights made applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, in violation
of the United States Constitution, actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) a
parallel claim based on the Maine State Constitution, actionable under 5 M.R.S.
§ 4682. Id. ¶¶ 79-101. As relevant to this motion in limine, the complaint states Mr.
McBreairty “is entitled to damages as a result of its actions, including, but not limited
to, lost income, emotional distress and incurring legal fees.” 	Id. ¶¶ 86, 95. 	Mr.
McBreairty’s complaint requests relief including “Actual Damages in an amount to
be determined at trial,” “Nominal Damages,” and “further relief the Court deems
appropriate.” Id. at 16.
On June 3, 2024, Shawn McBreairty died by suicide, Suggestion of Death as to
Pl. Shawn McBreairty at 1 (ECF No. 52). On September 6, 2024, Ms. McBreairty, as
personal representative of Mr. McBreairty’s Estate, (hereinafter, Plaintiff) was
formally substituted as plaintiff. Order Granting Mot. to Substitute Party (ECF No.
58).
1 	The complaint additionally named Brewer High School Principal Brent Slowikowski and
Brewer High School English Teacher Michelle MacDonald as defendants. Mr. Slowikowski has been
dismissed by order of this Court. See Order on Cross Mots. for Summ. J. and Mot. for Rule 56(d) Disc.
at 31 (ECF No. 117) (Order on Cross Mots. for Summ. J.). The Court also granted Ms. MacDonald’s
motion for summary judgment. Order on Mot. for Summ. J. and Mot. for Rule 56(d) Disc. at 8-9 (ECF
No. 118) (Order on Mot. for Summ. J.).
Case 1:24-cv-00053-JAW Document 253 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
On May 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a final pretrial memorandum and served her
initial disclosures. Pl.’s Pretrial Mem. (ECF No. 128). In that motion, she stated she
was seeking “nominal damages” as well as “actual damages, including compensation
for Mr. McBreairty’s severe, debilitating, and fatal emotional distress, as well as
punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.” 	Id. at 2. 	Plaintiff also itemized a more
extensive list of witnesses than previously identified. 	Id. at 3-4. On September 24,
2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part that motion, excluding some
witnesses. Order on Mot. for Order Regarding Trial Evid. (ECF No. 150) (Trial Evid.
Order).
This case is currently scheduled for trial in March 2026 on the remaining two
counts. 	Trial List (ECF No. 202). 	The Court held a final pretrial conference at the
Gignoux Courthouse, Portland, Maine on Tuesday, January 6, 2026. 	Min. Entry
(ECF No. 200). On January 7, 2026, the Court issued a final pretrial report and order
stating, inter alia, that the Court will “hold a bifurcated trial.” 	Report of Final
Pretrial Conf. and Order at 5 (ECF No. 205).
Before the Court now is the Defendants’ motion in limine, seeking to exclude
evidence of punitive damages from trial and granting judgment as a matter of law for
the Defendants on the Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. 	Defs.’ Mot. In Lim. To
Exclude Evid. of Punitive Damages (ECF No. 217) (Defs. Mot.). On February 23, 2026,
the Plaintiff submitted her response. 	Pl.’s. Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. in Lim. to Exclude
Evid. of Punitive Damages (ECF No. 225) (Pl.’s Opp’n).
II. 	THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
A. 	The Defendants’ Motion
Case 1:24-cv-00053-JAW Document 253 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has “yet to generate a sufficient
evidentiary foundation to rationalize putting the issue of punitive damages to the
jury.” 	Defs.’ Mot. at 4. 	Accordingly, they seek to exclude all evidence of punitive
damages from the trial on liability and compensatory damages. Second, and further,
the Defendants claim that due to Plaintiff’s late-notice quest for punitive damages—
“after the close of discovery and summary judgment briefing”—they have not been
able to file a dispositive motion on punitive damages and seek to do so now, asking
the Court to grant “judgment as a matter of law in defendants’ favor on the plaintiff’s
punitive damages claims.” Id. at 5-6. In support of this second point, the Defendants
explain 	that 	municipalities 	and 	their 	departments 	are 	immune 	from 	punitive
damages in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases and Defendant Palmer is immune from damages—
including punitive damages—under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Id. at 5.
B. 	The Plaintiff’s Opposition
The Plaintiff opposes the motion. 	Though she acknowledges that Defendant
Brewer School Department and Defendant Palmer in his official capacity are immune
from money damages, she maintains that the jury may award her punitive damages
against Defendant Palmer in his personal capacity. 	Pl.’s Opp’n at 1. 	As to the
judgment as a matter of law, the Plaintiff considers the motion better raised at the
close of evidence. Id. at 2.
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A. 	Relevance
“[E]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less
probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in
Case 1:24-cv-00053-JAW Document 253 Filed 03/20/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
determining the action.” F ED. R. EVID. 401. Courts should generally admit relevant
evidence unless directed otherwise by the United States Constitution, a federal
statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme
Court. F ED. R. EVID. 402. However, “[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay,
wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” F ED. R. EVID. 403.
IV. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Bifurcated Trial
Because the Court will hold a bifurcated trial with the issues of liability and
compensatory damages tried first to verdict and the issue of punitive damages tried
second, and only if the Plaintiff prevails, Report of Final Pretrial Conf. and Order at
5, the Court would exclude evidence that is expressly and only related to punitive
damages, like the Defendant’s wealth. 	See Shannon v. Sasseville, 684 F. Supp. 2d
169, 172 (D. Me. 2010) (admitting evidence regarding the defendant’s wealth for the
purposes 	of 	punitive 	damages 	only 	after the 	jury 	had awarded compensatory
damages).
However, on the record before the Court, there is no specific testimony or
evidence that the Defendants seeks to exclude. 	Because some evidence could be
relevant to both the trial on liability and the punitive damages phase, like the content
of the contested article at the center of the case, the Court declines to make a pretrial
ruling. Therefore, the Defendant’s motion is dismissed, without prejudice, insofar as
Case 1:24-cv-00053-JAW Document 253 Filed 03/20/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
it seeks to exclude all evidence of punitive damages at trial. Should the Plaintiff try
to introduce in evidence testimony or exhibits related solely to punitive damage, the
Defendants are free to re-raise the objection.
For now, the Court notes that evidence solely related to punitive damages is
prejudicial at the liability phase of trial. See Hearts with Haiti, Inc. v. Kendrick, 141
F. Supp. 3d 99, 120 (D. Me. 2015) (bifurcating trial over concern “that the admission
of evidence of [defendant’s] wealth during the initial liability and compensatory
damages phase would be unfairly prejudicial”); Goldenson v. Steffens, No. 2:10-cv-
00440-JAW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91672, at *5 (D. Me. Jul. 7, 2014) (“The Court
agrees with the Defendants, however, that the introduction of the Defendants’ wealth
into the liability phase of this trial would be potentially prejudicial”).
B. 	Judgment as a Matter of Law
The Court dismisses, without prejudice, the Defendants’ motion for judgment
as a matter of law. 	In their motion in limine, the Defendants seek “judgment as a
matter of law in the defendants’ favor on the plaintiff Patricia McBreairty’s punitive
damages claims,” Defs.’ Mot. at 1, ostensibly governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 50. 	However, a Rule 50(a) motion is timely made only after “a party has
been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) (emphasis
supplied). See Summers v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 508 F.3d 923, 928-30 (9th Cir. 2007);
Jaasma v. Shell Oil Co., 412 F.3d 501, 506 n.4 (3rd Cir. 2005) (stating that the trial
court acted prematurely in granting a Rule 50(a) motion before the commencement
of trial); Echeverria v. Chevron USA Inc., 391 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 2004) (concluding
Case 1:24-cv-00053-JAW Document 253 Filed 03/20/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
that a Rule 50 motion should not be acted upon until the non-movant has presented
all its evidence). 	Here, before any evidence has been presented to the jury, the
Defendants attempt to use Rule 50 to bar the Plaintiff from presenting punitive
damages evidence to the jury.
Though requesting a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the closest true
analogues would be either a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 or a motion for summary
judgment under Rule 56, since the Defendants seeks to challenge the legal sufficiency
of the Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim on an assumed set of facts. 	In either case,
the motion is a dispositive motion governed by the time limits imposed by the
Scheduling Order and is thus too late. 	The Court recognizes that it permitted the
Plaintiff to add damages not explicitly initially pled. See Order on Defs.’ Mot. in Lim.
To Exclude Evid. of Compensatory Damages Under Fed. R. Civ.P. 37(c)(1) (ECF No.
194) 	(explaining 	that 	“[d]espite 	plaintiff’s 	failure 	to 	make 	adequate 	initial
disclosures” the Court exclusion of several Plaintiff witnesses was “sufficient sanction
the Plaintiff . . . and because the defendants had actual or implicit knowledge of the
potential evidence”). However, the Court has already bifurcated this trial and expects
the parties to proceed accordingly. 	The Defendants are free to raise the argument
again at the close of the Plaintiff’s case in chief.
V. 	CONCLUSION
The Court DISMISSES, without prejudice, the Defendants’ Motion in Limine
to Exclude Evidence of Punitive Damages (ECF No. 217).
Case 1:24-cv-00053-JAW Document 253 Filed 03/20/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 20th day of March, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-00053-JAW Document 253 Filed 03/20/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>