Margie Daniel et al v. Ford Motor Company
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/13/2017 DENYING 172 Defendant's Motion in Limine. (Kirksey Smith, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARGIE DANIEL, individually
and on behalf of a class of
CIV. NO. 2:11-02890 WBS EFB
ORDER RE: MOTION IN LIMINE
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a
Before the court is defendant’s Motion in Limine to
Exclude Tire Wear Complaints (Docket No. 172).
that if the complaints are used to prove the truth of the matters
asserted therein, specifically that the tire wear issues
complained of actually occurred as described, the complaints are
that the complaints will not be offered to prove the truth of the
See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
The court agrees
However, it appears
matter asserted, but rather will be offered to prove defendant’s
notice of potential defects.
the complaints as hearsay at this time.
Thus, the court will not exclude
To the extent that defendant contends that the
complaints are not relevant absent a showing of substantial
similiarity or that the probative value of the complaints is
outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of the
issues, misleading the jury, waste of time, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence, those arguments are better
considered if and when the evidence is offered at the time of
respective trial briefs.
The parties are encouraged to raise these issues in their
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion in
Limine (Docket No. 172) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED,
without prejudice to the issues being raised in the trial briefs
and timely reasserted at the time of trial.
September 13, 2017
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?