Kipling v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 91

ORDER: 77 MOTION in Limine Regarding Testimony of her Step-Children is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 78 Unopposed MOTION in Limine Regarding Her Present Financial Condition is DENIED without prejudice; 79 Unopposed MOTION in Limi ne Regarding Other Sums Received by Plaintiff is DENIED without prejudice; 80 MOTION in Limine Regarding Her Subsequent Relationship with Michael McCasky is DENIED; 82 MOTION in Limine Regarding Quicksilver Evidence is GRANTED. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 5/2/13. (bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01948-BNB-CBS
KATHRYN KIPLING,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Minnesota
Division of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,
Defendant.

ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the following:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine Regarding Testimony of Her Step-Children

[Doc. # 77, filed 4/3/2013] (the “First Motion in Limine”);
(2)

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion In Limine Regarding Her Present Financial

Condition [Doc. # 78, filed 4/3/2013] (the “Second Motion In Limine”);
(3)

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion In Limine Regarding Other Sums Received By

Plaintiff [Doc. # 79, filed 4/3/2013] (the “Third Motion In Limine”);
(4)

Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine Regarding Her Subsequent Relationship With

Michael McCasky [Doc. # 80, filed 4/3/2013] (the “Fourth Motion In Limine”); and
(5)

Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine Regarding Quicksilver Evidence [Doc. # 82,

filed 4/18/2013] (the “Fifth Motion In Limine”).
I held a hearing on the motions in limine this morning and made rulings on the record,
which are incorporated here.

IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

The First Motion In Limine [Doc. # 77] is GRANTED to preclude examination

concerning disputes the step-children “claim to have had with Plaintiff since their father’s death,
including disputes regarding life-insurance proceeds and access to personal property kept at the
marital home,” and DENIED in all other respects. In particular, the step-children may testify
concerning the plaintiff’s claim to physical and emotional injuries;
(2)

The Second Motion In Limine [Doc. # 78] is DENIED without prejudice. The

defendant may inquire about the plaintiff’s financial condition in the event she opens the door to
such inquiry. Otherwise, the objection may be interposed at trial, if appropriate and necessary;
(3)

The Third Motion In Limine [Doc. # 79] is DENIED without prejudice. The

defendant may inquire about other sums received by the plaintiff and her financial condition in
the event she opens the door to such inquiry. Otherwise, the objection may be interposed at trial,
if appropriate and necessary;
(4)

The Fourth Motion In Limine [Doc. # 80] is DENIED; and

(5)

The Fifth Motion In Limine [Doc. # 82] is GRANTED.

Dated May 2, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2