Dancy v. Scribner, et al

Filing 109

ORDER Granting Defendants' Motion In Limine (Doc. 106 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/28/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SAMUEL DANCY, JR.,

12

Case No. 1:07-cv-00716 AWI JLT (PC)

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION IN LIMINE

vs.
(Doc. 106)

14

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

_________________________________/

17

Before the Court is the motion in limine filed by Defendants on December 9, 2011. (Doc.

18

106) Plaintiff has opposed this motion. (Doc. 107) According to Local Rule 230(l), the Court

19

issues the following order GRANTING Defendants’ motion in limine.

20

I.

Discussion

21

Defendants move the Court for an order precluding Plaintiff from introducing medical

22

opinion evidence in his testimony. (Doc. 106) They do not dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to

23

testify as to “the nature and extent of whatever symptoms he claims to have suffered since the

24

incident of February 24, 2005.” Id. at 2. Instead, Defendants dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to

25

testify as to his diagnosis, his prognosis, the future course of his medical treatment and the

26

further injury caused by the delay in treatment, if any. Id. at 2-3.

27

Plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to testify as to these topics. (Doc. 107) His

28
1

1

argument rests upon his claim that Defendants have misrepresented in their motion how and

2

where the incident which caused his injury occurred. Id. at 1-2.

3

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 702, a person is permitted to testify as to

4

“scientific, technical or other specialized” information if the witness is “qualified as an expert by

5

knowledge, skill, experience, training or education” and the testimony is based upon sufficient

6

facts or data, the testimony is based upon reliable analysis and the witness applies this reliable

7

analysis to the data.

8
9

Here, Defendants are concerned that Plaintiff will seek to introduce evidence about his
medical condition which is, of course, information within the purview of a medical expert.

10

Indeed, Plaintiff does not purport to have medical expertise and, apparently, wishes to testify

11

about what one or more medical professionals told him about his condition. This is not

12

permitted.

13

As Defendants agree, Plaintiff may testify about his own perceptions of what he felt.

14

Likewise, if relevant, he may cross-examine any testifying medical expert about his condition but

15

he is not personally permitted to testify as to any scientific conclusions regarding his medical

16

condition. Therefore, Defendants’ motion in liming is GRANTED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: December 28, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2