Chandler et al v. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc et al

Filing 149

ORDER denying 119 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 121 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 5/29/2014. (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. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Videos from December 2010 and
January 9, 2011 (Doc. No. 119) is DENIED, assuming Defendant can establish a proper
foundation.
2. Plaintiffs’ omnibus Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 121) is GRANTED in PART and
DENIED in PART.
•

Motion in Limine No. 1 -- Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude references to the fact
that he receives social security disability and insurance payments is GRANTED.
Defendant concedes the motion.

•

Motion in Limine No. 2 -- Plaintiffs ask that Defendant be prevented from using
leading questions for its witness. The parties are expected to comply with Federal
Rule of Evidence 611.

•

Motion in Limine No. 3 -- Plaintiffs’ request to exclude testimony regarding the
number of other vehicles that drive through the area where the accident occurred
is DENIED, assuming Defendant can establish that there were no similar
accidents, that is, proximately caused by the alleged defects in the construction
zone. It appears, however, that establishing that the other accidents were not
caused by Plaintiffs’ alleged defects would involve a trial within a trial; that is too

1

much ado, which may be excludable under FRE 403. In other words, I may
change my mind on this point.
•

Motion in Limine No. 4 -- Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude reference to any of Ted
Chandler’s medical conditions before the accident is DENIED.

•

Motion in Limine No. 5 -- Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of certain
witnesses is DENIED for the same reasons set out in the May 2, 2014 Order.1

•

Motion in Limine No. 6 -- Plaintiffs seek to exclude any photos or videos of the
area in question, except for those taken or record on the date closed to the day the
wreck occurred. The request is DENIED, assuming Defendant can establish a
proper foundation. Even assuming Defendant can establish a proper foundation
for the later made photos or videos, only a reasonable number will be permitted.

•

Motion in Limine No. 7 -- Plaintiffs’ request that Defendant be directed to use
word “commercial motor vehicle driver” rather than “professional truck driver” is
DENIED.

•

Motion in Limine No. 8 -- Plaintiffs’ motion to prevent Defendant from telling
the jury that he was “driving too fast” or “speeding” is DENIED.

•

Motion in Limine No. 9 -- Plaintiffs’ request that Defendant be prevented from
eliciting testimony from Lynn Parrish as to the cause of the accident is DENIED.

•

Motion in Limine No. 10 -- Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude any reference to “other
accident reports from law enforcement” regarding the same area is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of May, 2014.
/s/ Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Doc. No. 112.
2