Chandler et al v. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc et al

Filing 148

ORDER denying 122 Motion in Limine; granting 123 Motion in Limine; denying 124 Motion in Limine; denying 125 Motion in Limine with respect to the granddaughter. Regarding the driving record, Plaintiffs may raise this in rebuttal if Defendant puts the issue in through their expert or otherwise. Denying 128 Motion in Limine and finding as moot 130 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 5/28/2014. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
TED CHANDLER and MARTHA CHANDLER
VS.

PLAINTIFFS

3:12CV00104-BRW

JACOB ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1. Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 122) to preclude Plaintiffs from presenting
evidence regarding the bid for the contract or payments made to APAC under the contract is
DENIED, since this issue is better addressed during trial.
2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 123) to exclude reference to the fact that
APAC was “paid with tax payer money” is GRANTED, since Plaintiffs concede the issue.1
3. Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 124) to exclude suggestions and any
witness testimony that APAC had a duty to comply with a more demanding standard of care than
the one recognized by Arkansas law is DENIED, since this issue is better addressed during trial.
4. Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 125) seeks to exclude any reference by
Plaintiffs that they serve as the primary caretaker for their granddaughter and any evidence that
Plaintiff “had a good driving record” before the accident. The motion is DENIED with respect
to the granddaughter. Regarding the driving record, Plaintiffs may raise this in rebuttal if
Defendant puts the issue in through their expert or otherwise.
7. Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 128) to exclude “improper lay opinion
testimony regarding medical causation” and evidence of medical expenses not causally

1

Doc. No. 137.
1

associated with the accident is DENIED at this time. Defendant may object during trial if
Plaintiffs step out of bounds.
8. Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 130) to exclude certain portions of video
deposition is MOOT, since Plaintiffs responded that they “are not aware of any witness who will
testify by video.”2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2014.

/s/ Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Doc. No. 141.
2