Sullivan v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al

Filing 61

ORDER on motions in limine, documents 44 45 46 and 50 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/21/2018. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER SULLIVAN,

12

Case No. 1:17-cv-00959-EPG

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE
AFTER HEARING

13
v.
14
15

(ECF Nos. 44, 45, 46, 50)

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
AND TRICAM INDUSTRIES, INC.,

16
17

Defendants.

18
19

Plaintiff, Christopher Sullivan, commenced this products liability action against Costco

20

Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) and Tricam Industries, Inc. (“Tricam”) (collectively,

21

“Defendants”) in the Superior Court for the County of Fresno on July 18, 2017. (ECF No. 2.)

22

Defendants removed the action to this court under diversity jurisdiction on July 18, 2017. (ECF Nos.

23

1, 2.) Plaintiff alleges that on January 2, 2016, he sustained injuries when he fell while using a step

24

stool designed, manufactured, marketed, and distributed by Tricam and sold by Costco. (ECF No. 2.)

25

On June 29, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and to exclude expert

26

testimony. (ECF No. 22.) The motion was heard and decided by Chief Judge Lawrence O’Neill on

27

August 23, 2018. (ECF No. 29). The court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for breach of express and

28

implied warranties, but denied the remainder of the motion. Id.
1

This case is set for trial on January 8, 2019.1 (ECF No. 42.) The parties have filed competing

1
2

motions in limine. (ECF Nos. 44, 45, 46, 50.) The Court held a motion hearing on the parties’

3

motions in limine on December 21, 2018. For the reasons stated on the record during the hearing, the

4

motions in limine are granted in part and denied in part as follows:

5

I.

6

Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 1: Evidence that Plaintiff inquired about, sought out, or
requested a prescription for marijuana from any healthcare provider: Granted.
Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 1 is granted. Defendants’ objection that the evidence is

7

relevant and probative is overruled.

8

II.

9
10
11

Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 2: Evidence that Plaintiff received treatment for any
cardiovascular issue(s): Denied.
Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 2 is denied. Defendants’ objection that the evidence is

relevant and sufficiently probative is sustained.

12

Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 3: Evidence, Testimony, Attorney Argument or Other
Comments Regarding the Twenty-Nine (29) Photographs Depicting the Accident Scene:
Granted in part.

13

Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 3 is granted as to the following photographs: ECF No. 50-2

III.

14

at 2, 3, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. These photographs are excluded, and Defendants’ objections to

15

exclusion of these photographs is overruled.

16

Plaintiff withdrew objection to the following photographs, which may be admitted into

17

evidence at trial: ECF No. 50-2 at 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,

18

23, 29, and 30.

19

IV.

20
21

Defendants’ motion in limine No. 1: Evidence related to ANSI A 14.11 Safety Standard:
Denied.
Defendant’s motion in limine No. 1 is denied, and Plaintiff’s objection that the evidence is

relevant and sufficiently probative is sustained.

22
23

Defendants’ motion in limine No. 2: Evidence Related to a Certain “Side Load Test” of
an Exemplar Ladder Conducted by Plaintiff’s Engineering Expert: Granted.

24

Defendants’ motion in limine No. 2 is granted, and Plaintiff’s objection that the evidence was

V.

25

timely disclosed is overruled.

26

\\\

27

\\\

28

1

Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (ECF
Nos. 38, 40.)

2

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons stated on the record,

3

1. Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 1 (ECF No. 44) is granted; Plaintiff’s motion in limine

4

No. 2 (ECF No. 44) is denied; and Plaintiff’s motion in limine No. 3 (ECF No. 50) is

5

granted in part, as discussed above.

6

2. Defendants’ motion in limine No. 1 (ECF No. 45) is denied; and Defendants’ motion in
limine No. 2 (ECF No. 46) is granted.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
11

Dated:

December 21, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3