Entry Regarding Motion Page 8 of 11
24-CV-04273 Juliet Stephens v. Shannon Gilmour
5. Exclusion of Mental Health History (Motion #26)
Plaintiff has also filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude any testimony regarding her
mental health history. Plaintiff’s basis for this motion is twofold. First, she contends that her
mental health is not relevant to the claims. Second, she contends that whatever minimal relevance is
strongly outweighed by the prejudicial effect. She notes that the Court previously granted her
motion to strike Defendant’s references to her mental health in her answer as more prejudicial than
probative.
Defendant does not dispute this motion and contends that she has complied with the
Court’s prior order.
Based on this, the Court Grants Plaintiff’s motion. Defendant may use the properly
redacted and re-filed exhibits and may not reference or make allegations regarding Plaintiff’s mental
health history at trial.
6. Evidence of Retaliatory Conduct (Motion #27)
Defendant’s next motion concerns various areas of testimony and evidence for which she
seeks a preliminary ruling of admissibility. These include: (A) a list of alleged protected activity from
September 14th to October 24th, 2024; (B) facts regarding the complaint and service brought against
M.G.; (C) emails with Attorney Safar; and (D) the Court’s destruction Defendant’s exhibits.
Plaintiff opposes categories (B) and (C). Plaintiff notes that service of the complaint on
M.G. and including her in the original complaint is not relevant to the claims before the Court.
Plaintiff notes that the evidence sought in category (C) should be excluded as either an offer of
settlement under V.R.E. 408 or irrelevant to the present claims.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff on both counts. The evidence of M.G.’s inclusion as a party
was addressed above. The Court finds that the preliminary conversations between Defendant and
Attorney Safar fall under the confidentiality provisions of Rule 408, which generally makes any
communication made in settlement negotiations inadmissible in relation to liability and damages. As
to the remaining communications, the Court does not find them to be relevant as they concern the
parties’ ongoing, tense cohabitation and do not make any of Defendant’s counterclaims more or less
true. For this reason, the Court Denies Defendant’s Motion to admit Categories (B) and (C) as they
are inadmissible under Rules of Evidence 402 and 408.
As to category (A), the Court will not address the admissibility of these facts at this time.
The facts in category (A) appear to have some relevance to the claims and counterclaims, but as the
Court has noted in this decision, issues of admissibility are best addressed at trial. State v. Williams,
2010 VT 77, ¶ 11, 188 Vt. 405.
Similarly, the Court will not address the admissibility of the documents listed in Category (D)
as Defendant will have to lay a foundation and establish the relevance of each exhibit unless the
parties can stipulate to admissibility.
Entry Regarding Motion Page 9 of 11
24-CV-04273 Juliet Stephens v. Shannon Gilmour
This last issue appears to have arisen, in part, because Defendant filed original paper copies
with the Court as part of her earlier filings, and the Court, consistent with Vermont Rule of
Electronic Filing 12, destroyed the paper copies once they were scanned and entered into the
electronic filing system. V.R.E.F. 12(a) and (b), rptr n. (explaining that the electronic file is the
official record, that parties should not file originals that they wish to preserve, and that “The paper
document may be scanned and destroyed and, thus, become unavailable to the filer in the future.”).
The Court will note that Rule of Evidence 1003 allows that a duplicate of an original document is
admissible to the same extent as the original, subject to the same objections that the original might
have as to authenticity or the extent that admission of a duplicate would be unfair. V.R.E. 1003.
For these reasons, Defendant’s motion is limine is Denied at this time for the reasons
stated.
7. Motion to File Medical Records under Seal (Motion #28)
Defendant has filed a motion to file medical records for M.G. under seal. This motion was
filed after the Court-imposed deadline for pre-trial filings. To date, the Court does not have a
response to this motion from Plaintiff.
Given the sensitive and personal nature of the medical records, the Court will Grant
Defendant’s motion in part. The Court will allow these records to be filed under seal. In doing so,
the Court makes no ruling on the admissibility of these records as M.G. is not a party to the present
case. Her health is not an issue in any of the claims, and any claim for impacts to M.G.’s health are
M.G.’s claims to assert, and it is not for Defendant to raise.
Therefore, the Court will address these records with parties as part of the pre-trial
conference in this matter on October 27, 2025.
8. Motion to Enforce (Motion #29)
Defendant filed a motion seeking sanctions and injunctive action against Plaintiff for filing
five exhibits with M.G.’s name. These documents were not new documents but prior exhibits.
Defendant claims extensive and ongoing harm from the filing of these documents. Before the
Court became aware of this Motion, Plaintiff had filed redacted versions of the offending
documents. The Court finds this to be a reasonable resolution as it corrects the prior filings and
eliminates any ongoing issues.
The Court will note that the decision on which Defendant relies does not impose sanctions
or any retroactive obligations on the parties. It simply grants the motion to proceed with any
reference to M.G. being limited to her initials. In reviewing this Order, the Court finds that there is
room for confusion. Therefore, the Court cannot find as a matter of law that there was a Court
order requiring the extensive redaction that Defendant seeks. Second, the Court also does not find
that there is evidence of bad faith or malice in the filing. Both parties have filed multiple
documents, and the documents at issue were previously filed in this case and have not been sealed.