Duren et al v. E I duPont de Nemours and Company et al
ORDER granting 93 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 94 Motion in Limine; granting 95 Motion in Limine; deferring ruling on 96 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 98 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/29/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JAMES DUREN; ANN DUREN;
J.J.’S TRUCK STOP, INC.; and
AL’S TRUCK STOP OF MALVERN, INC.
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; SENTINEL TRANSPORTATION,
LLC; and JOHN DOES 1–10
For the reasons stated on the record at the 28 June 2012 hearing, the
parties’ motions in limine—Document Nos. 93, 94, 95, 96, & 98—are granted in
part, denied in part, and held in abeyance in part.
1. Defendants’ General Motion In Limine. Defendants’ motion,
Document No. 98, is granted as to subsections 5, 6, 19, & 20, and is granted by
agreement as to subsections 7, 9, 12, 13, & 17. Subsections 8, 14, & 18 are
denied without prejudice as premature and too general. Subsections 16 &
21–26 are denied as they have been adequately addressed in the Court’s
earlier ruling on summary judgment. Document No. 81. Subsections 10, 11, &
15 are denied as moot.
Subsections 1–4 are also denied as moot, but with one exception: the
Court will allow Plaintiffs to play some video clips of local news coverage
about the incident. The parties must confer, however, and winnow down the
Plaintiffs’ news clips. The newspaper articles are excluded.
2. Richard Duren and Witness Statements to Counsel. Plaintiffs’
motions, Document Nos. 93 & 95, are granted by agreement. Further, the Court
will honor counsel’s request and inquire during voir dire about whether
members of the venire know any of the folks associated with Richard Duren.
3. Christopher Mercer’s Opinion and Testimony. Motion, Document
No. 94, held in abeyance. The Court needs more context. Plaintiffs should
therefore supplement the motion with copies of the full Mercer deposition and
report by Monday, 2 July 2012.
4. Charlotte Squires and Business Records. Motion, Document No. 96,
is also held in abeyance. As the Court noted, there are two questions here.
First, are the records admissible as authenticated business records? And
second, what effect does their admissibility or inadmissibility have on
Mercer’s expert opinion testimony?
The parties should file short,
simultaneous briefs on these two points by Monday, 2 July 2012.
* * *
Motion, Document No. 98, granted in part and denied in part. Motions,
Document Nos. 93 & 95, granted by agreement. Motions, Document Nos. 94 &
96, held in abeyance. Mercer supplement and post-hearing briefs due by 2
July 2012. The parties should also submit their lists of proposed voir dire
questions to chambers, with copies to opposing counsel, by 2 July 2012.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
29 June 2012
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?