Ketre v. Auburn Aquatics, Inc.

Filing 98

ORDERED that 84 Motion is DENIED in part and CONDITIONALLY GRANTED in part as further set out. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 3/26/2009. (cb, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION G E R T R U D E KETRE, P la in tif f , v. A U B U R N AQUATICS SWIM P R O G R A M ., et al., D e f e n d a n ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 3:07-cv-536-MEF

(W O - DO NOT PUBLISH)

ORDER
T h is cause is before the Court on the Motion in Limine (Doc. # 84) filed by Defendant A u b u rn Aquatics Swim Program. This Court has careful considered the arguments advanced in support of and in opposition to the motion made both in writing and orally at the pretrial. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED in part and CONDITIONALLY G R A N T E D in part. The motion is DENIED with respect to the following categories: 1 . Any and all evidence of any allegation and/or contention not mentioned in P la in tif f 's Complaint. The Court has found that Plaintiff shall be allowed to p r o c e e d on some but not all of those theories Defendant Kelly has claimed w e re not encompassed by the Complaint or Amended Complaint. Consistent w ith that prior ruling on the Renewed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Pretrial O rder Contentions, the motion in limine is DENIED with respect to allegations that Auburn Aquatics failed to warn about any condition related to the mat or th a t Auburn Aquatics failed to inspect the facility.

With respect to the following categories, the motion is CONDITIONALLY G RA N TED : 1 . Any and all evidence of any allegation and/or contention not mentioned in P la in tif f 's Complaint. The Court has found that Plaintiff shall be allowed to p r o c e e d on some but not all of those theories Defendant Kelly has claimed w e re not encompassed by the Complaint or Amended Complaint. Consistent w ith that prior ruling on the Renewed Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Pretrial O rd e r Contentions, the motion in limine is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED w ith respect to allegations that Auburn Aquatics failed to conduct a pre-meet s a f e ty inspection and that Auburn Aquatics failed to have safety officials at the m e e t. 2 . Any and all evidence relating to additional warnings made or precautions ta k e n by Auburn Aquatics after February 3, 2006 as they are subsequent re m e d ia l measures, subject to any exception acknowledged by Federal Rule of E v id e n c e 407. 3 . Any testimony of Plaintiff, her daughter, her son-in-law, or any other w itn ess regarding hearsay statements made by unknown third parties regarding p re v io u s accidents caused by the blue mat at issue and/or previous occasions w h e re the mat is alleged to have posed a trip hazard. D O N E this the 26th day of March, 2009. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2