Gaillard v. Commins et al

Filing 93

ORDER granting 84 Motion in Limine; granting 85 Motion in Limine; denying 86 Motion in Limine; granting 87 Motion in Limine; granting 88 Motion in Limine. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 10/29/2014. (tgw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WINSTON GAILLARD, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SATSUMA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION 12-0228-WS-N
)
)
)
)
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s five motions in limine.
(Docs. 84-88). The plaintiff has filed a response, (Doc. 91), and the motions are
ripe for resolution.
The plaintiff has no objection to the first, second, fourth and fifth motions
in limine. (Doc. 91 at 1). Accordingly, those motions are granted. The plaintiff,
his witnesses and his lawyers are restricted according to the tenor of those
motions.
The third motion in limine seeks to preclude plaintiff’s expert Anthony
Sasso from testifying that, from the car video, he heard the defendant’s vehicle
accelerate and then heard the engine die down. (Doc. 86). The defendant states
(without offering evidence) that there is no audio on the video, while the plaintiff
says there is. (Doc. 91 at 1). It really does not matter whether there is audio or
not; it is not good grounds to exclude factual testimony simply because it is
wrong. The jury is perfectly capable of determining whether the video includes
audio and whether the sounds Sasso says he heard are actually there. The third
motion in limine is denied.
DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of October, 2014.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE