Sweat v. United States of America

Filing 58

ORDER denying 38 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 1/7/2016. (JM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CARISSA SWEAT,
Plaintiff,

v.

CASE NO. 8:14-CV-888-T-17JSS

UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on:
Dkt. 38
Dkt. 45

Motion in Limine
Response in Opposition

Plaintiff Carissa Sweat moves for entry of an Order prohibiting Defendant United
States of America from entering into evidence, arguing, commenting upon, testifying or
making any reference whatsoever at trial as to the following:

1. Plaintiffs use of marijuana, hemp seed oil or THC;
2. Plaintiff’s diagnosis or treatment for suspected breast cancer;
3. Plaintiff’s anxiety or hospitalization based on encounters with her son,
his girlfriend and Child Protective Services;
4. Events that occurred on June 12, 2009 .
Plaintiff Sweat argues that evidence as to the above issues is irrelevant pursuant
to Fed. R. Ev. 401, or that the evidence should be excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Ev.
403, as the Court should find that the probative value of the evidence is substantially
outweighed by danger of confusion of the issues and misleading the fact-finder, or that
the testimony may inflame the passions of the Court so that the verdict might reflect a

Case No. 8:14-CV-888-T-17JSS
negative emotional response to such evidence.

Plaintiff Sweat further argues that

none of the issues can be used as impeachment evidence, as there is no prior
inconsistent statement that could be elicited from Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R Ev. 613
regarding those statements.

Defendant United States of America responds that evidence as to the above
issues is relevant to Plaintiffs credibility, which is a critical issue in light of the lack of
medical evidence supporting Plaintiffs contention that the motor vehicle accident
caused or exacerbated Plaintiffs medical conditions, and the fact that Plaintiff selfreports her injuries. Defendant United States of America argues that there is no legal
basis to exclude evidence as to the above issues.
As to Plaintiffs use of marijuana, etc., during her deposition, Plaintiff was
questioned extensively as to her use, and offered different explanations at different
times.

As to the diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer, Defendant United States
argues that Plaintiffs medical records show that Plaintiff has not had breast cancer, but
Plaintiff has self-reported a history of breast cancer; Plaintiff has further denied she has
had a chance to get a mammogram but has had the time to visit Tampa Pain Relief
regularly for prescriptions for painkillers, muscle relaxers and anti-anxiety drugs.

As to Plaintiffs anxiety or hospitalization and family issues, Defendant United
States argues that the Court is entitled to know Plaintiffs history and should not be
asked to view Plaintiff in a vacuum. Defendant United States argues that Plaintiffs
medical records show that Plaintiff has been prescribed and filled prescriptions for
Xanax from 2003 up to the present, including prescriptions from more than one doctor
at the same time.

2

Case No. 8:14-CV-888-T-17JSS
As to the events of June 12, 2009, these events include Plaintiffs consumption
of alcohol and muscle relaxers while alone at the beach, then suddenly passing out,
such that an acquaintance called 911 to transport Plaintiff to the emergency room.
Defendant United States argues that Plaintiff testified in deposition that Plaintiff is “not a
daily drinker'’ and that Plaintiff will have “a glass of wine on Thanksgiving and a glass of
champagne on New Years.” Defendant United States argues that Plaintiff has reported
to her doctors that Plaintiff is a “non-drinker'’ and has denied the use of alcohol at all.
Defendant United States further argues that Plaintiff was suspended from her job at Jet
Blue on December 24, 2009 for being intoxicated at work.

Defendant United States argues that all of the above issues are relevant to
Plaintiffs credibility, and are relevant to the Court’s determination as to how and when
Plaintiff’s physical ailments occurred, and whether the subject motor vehicle accident
exacerbated Plaintiffs extensive pre-existing ailments.

After consideration, the Court denies Plaintiffs Motion in Limine. Plaintiff Sweat
may renew her motion as appropriate during trial; the Court will make any Rule 403
determination that arises on a case by case basis. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Dkt. 38) is denied. Plaintiff Sweat
may renew her motion as appropriate during trial; the Court will make any Rule 403
determination that arises on a case by case basis.

3

Case No. 8:14-CV-888-T-17JSS
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida on this 7th day of
January, 2016.

r

4