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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?