Daniel et al v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 181

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/13/2017 DENYING #172 Defendant's Motion in Limine. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

MARGIE DANIEL, individually
and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated
individuals,

14
15
16
17
18

CIV. NO. 2:11-02890 WBS EFB
ORDER RE: MOTION IN LIMINE

Plaintiff,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant.

19
----oo0oo----

20
21

Before the court is defendant’s Motion in Limine to

22

Exclude Tire Wear Complaints (Docket No. 172).

23

that if the complaints are used to prove the truth of the matters

24

asserted therein, specifically that the tire wear issues

25

complained of actually occurred as described, the complaints are

26

improper hearsay.

27

that the complaints will not be offered to prove the truth of the

See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).

28
1

The court agrees

However, it appears

1

matter asserted, but rather will be offered to prove defendant’s

2

notice of potential defects.

3

the complaints as hearsay at this time.

4

Thus, the court will not exclude

To the extent that defendant contends that the

5

complaints are not relevant absent a showing of substantial

6

similiarity or that the probative value of the complaints is

7

outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of the

8

issues, misleading the jury, waste of time, or needless

9

presentation of cumulative evidence, those arguments are better

10

considered if and when the evidence is offered at the time of

11

trial.

12

respective trial briefs.

13

The parties are encouraged to raise these issues in their

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion in

14

Limine (Docket No. 172) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED,

15

without prejudice to the issues being raised in the trial briefs

16

and timely reasserted at the time of trial.

17

Dated:

September 13, 2017

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2