Carter v. Lotspeich, et al
Filing
117
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Wiley Y. Daniel: Trial Preparation Conference held on 8/20/2015. Granting in part, denying in part, and deferring ruling on in part 100 Motion in Limine. Granting 115 Stipulation to Allow Testimony by Video Conference. Court Reporter: Mary George. (rkeec)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
SENIOR JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL
Courtroom Deputy:
E.C.R./Reporter:
Robert R. Keech
Mary George
Date: August 20, 2015
Civil Action No: 12-cv-01381-WYD-KMT
Counsel:
HEATHER CARTER,
Bruce L. Braley
Brian N. Aleinikoff
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID C. LOUCKS, M.D.,
Scott S. Nixon
Michael S. Drew
Defendant.
COURTROOM MINUTES
TRIAL PREPARATION CONFERENCE
10:05 a.m.
Court in Session
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL.
Court’s opening remarks.
10:06 a.m.
Discussion regarding settlement discussion, that this case is likely to go to trial,
and estimated length of trial being 5-6 days.
10:08 a.m.
Discussion regarding jury instructions and joint statement of the case.
10:09 a.m.
Court outlines protocol for voir dire and jury selection.
ORDERED:
Each side will be allowed supplemental voir dire not to exceed twenty (20)
minutes.
10:12 a.m.
Discussion regarding time limits for opening statements.
-1-
ORDERED:
Opening statements shall not exceed forty (40) minutes per side.
10:13 a.m.
Discussion regarding preparing a glossary of terms that will be used during trial.
ORDERED:
Parties shall file glossary of terms that will be used during the trial not later than
Friday, August 28, 2015.
Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine [ECF Doc. No. 100], filed July 21, 2015, is raised for
argument.
10:24 a.m.
Argument by Defendant (Mr. Nixon).
10:25 a.m.
Argument by Plaintiff (Mr. Braley).
10:26 a.m.
Argument by Defendant (Mr. Nixon).
10:28 a.m.
Argument by Plaintiff (Mr. Braley).
10:31 a.m.
Argument by Defendant (Mr. Nixon).
10:42 a.m.
Argument by Plaintiff (Mr. Braley).
ORDERED:
Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine [ECF Doc. No. 100], filed July 21, 2015, is
GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DEFERRED IN PART. The
motion is GRANTED to the extent the motion seeks to preclude evidence or
argument that the subsequent providers were negligent in treating plaintiff, legally
culpable, and whether their conduct fell below the reasonable care standard that
applies, since none of the subsequent providers were designated as a non-party
at fault under the Colorado statute. The motion is DENIED to the extent it
suggests that the defendant is precluded from presenting evidence as to
causation. The motion is DEFERRED as to commenting on medical records
regarding Plaintiff’s motivation.
10:45 a.m.
Discussion regarding Stipulation to Allow Testimony by Video Conference [ECF
Doc. No. 115], filed August 19, 2015.
ORDERED:
Stipulation to Allow Testimony by Video Conference [ECF Doc. No. 115], filed
August 19, 2015, is GRANTED.
ORDERED:
Counsel shall contact the Court’s Information Technology department to make
arrangements for the witnesses to appear via video conference.
10:49 a.m.
Discussion regarding a procedure for showing extent of Plaintiff's injuries to the
jury.
-2-
ORDERED:
Parties shall file a stipulation, related to procedure for showing extent of Plaintiff’s
injuries to the jury, not later than Friday, September 4, 2015.
10:56 a.m.
Discussion regarding stipulations to exhibits.
ORDERED:
Parties shall file revised exhibit lists not later than Friday, September 4, 2015.
10:57 a.m.
Discussion regarding protocol for use of medical record exhibits at trial.
10:59 a.m.
Discussion regarding exhibit notebooks, courtroom technology, and the Jury
Evidence Recording System (J.E.R.S.).
11:01 a.m.
Discussion regarding Court’s protocol for examination of witnesses and use of
learned treatises as exhibits.
ORDERED:
Counsel shall arrive on Monday, September 14, 2015, at 8:30 a.m.
11:03 a.m.
Court in Recess - HEARING CONCLUDED.
TOTAL TIME: :58
-3-
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?