Tedder v. American Railcar Industries Inc

Filing 85

ORDER granting in part and denying in part without prejudice 51 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part without prejudice 52 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine; denying without prejudice 56 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine; holding in abeyance 77 Defendant's Motion in Limine; granting 78 Plaintiff's Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 4/6/2012. (jct)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
GEORGE TEDDER
v.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO.: 3:09CV00186 BSM

AMERICAN RAILCAR INDUSTRIES, INC.

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Plaintiff’s first motion in limine [Doc. No. 51] is granted in part and denied in part as
follows. Defendants are precluded from introducing evidence regarding plaintiff’s prior
felonies unless plaintiff opens the door. All remaining requests are denied without prejudice
because this is the type of evidence that must be viewed in the context of the trial to
determine whether it is relevant.
Plaintiff’s second motion in limine [Doc. No. 52 ] is granted in part and denied in part
as follows. Defendants are precluded from presenting evidence that plaintiff has received
insurance, social security benefits or other recoveries from other sources unless plaintiff
opens the door. All remaining requests are denied without prejudice because this is the type
of evidence that must be viewed in the context of the trial to determine whether it is relevant.
Plaintiff’s third motion in limine [Doc. No. 56] is denied without prejudice because
this is the type of evidence that must be viewed in the context of the trial to determine
whether it is relevant.
Plaintiff’s fourth motion in limine [Doc. No. 78] is granted and the independent
medical examination reports of February 18, 2011, and January 12, 2012, are inadmissible

unless they are properly authenticated.
Defendant’s motion in limine [Doc. No. 77] does not request a ruling but is intended
to place plaintiff on notice that all of the issues raised therein should be taken up out of the
hearing of the jury. For this reason, a ruling on the topics raised in the motion are held in
abeyance until they are raised at trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of April 2012.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2