Entry Regarding Motion Page 2 of 11
24-CV-04273 Juliet Stephens v. Shannon Gilmour
pleadings. Sixth, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Rule 12(f) motion to strike the portions of
Defendant’s answer and motion to join that discussed Plaintiff’s mental health history in four places.
The Court sealed the filings and required Defendant to refile versions of both filings with the
identified passages removed or redacted. No other sanctions were awarded.
On April 17, 2025, the Court issued a second Order that addressed the subsequent motions
and developments in the case. The Court made the following rulings. First, it recognized that
Plaintiff had sought to dismiss her claims against M.G. in February of 2025 and granted the
dismissal of these claims under V.R.C.P. 41(a)(3). Second, the Court granted permission for
Attorney Anderson to enter a notice of appearance on behalf of M.G., even though the appearance
occurred outside of the Court’s January 30-day deadline. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to
dismiss M.G.’s counterclaims pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), but the Court dismissed M.G.’s
counterclaims and M.G. as a party because of the delay that these claims posed to the central claims
of the case. The Court invoked V.R.C.P. 1 and its discretionary authority to control its docket,
preserve judicial resources, and ensure efficient disposition of cases. In re Snowstone, LLC Act 250
Jurisdictional Opinion, 2021 VT 72A, ¶ 24, 216 Vt. 216. The Court will further note that this ruling
followed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against M.G., which removed any compulsory
counterclaim issues under V.R.C.P. 13. Letourneau v. Hickey, 174 Vt. 481, 481–82 (2002) (mem.).
Finally, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to set this matter for trial at the Court’s next available
date.
On July 11, 2025, the Court issued a third Order. This decision dismissed Defendant’s
abuse of process counterclaim for similar reasons to its prior decision to dismiss Defendant’s
defamation claims—namely that the claims belonged to M.G., and they were hers alone to assert.
On August 8, 2025, the Court issued a fourth Order addressing three motions by Defendant
to take judicial notice and admit (1) Vermont statutes and (2) two voice recordings. The Court
denied the first request as Vermont statutes are not evidence but explained that both parties may
argue in reliance on them. The Court denied the second motion in two respects. First, it did not
rule that the recordings were admissible, but it denied Plaintiff’s request to rule them per se
inadmissible. Instead, the Court ruled that the admissibility of such recordings would depend on
whether a sufficient foundation could be established, including relevance and reliability, and whether
at such time of admission the prejudice outweighed the evidentiary value of the exhibits. State v.
Williams, 2010 VT 77, ¶ 11, 188 Vt. 405.
In addition to these motions, Defendant filed several motions for interlocutory appeal.
These motions were denied by this Court on August 25, 2025, and by the Vermont Supreme Court
on October 13, 2025.
Current Motions in Limine
The parties have filed eight pre-trial motions seeking various accommodations, rulings, and
processes for the upcoming jury trial presently set for October 27 and 28, 2025.