Lawson v. Wells et al

Filing 75

ORDER finding as moot 37 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 39 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion in Limine; finding as moot 68 Motion to Strike ; granting in part and denying in part 70 Motion to Exlude Demonstrative Evident Used During Deposition. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 11/17/2010. (nbp)

Lawson v. Wells et al

Doc. 75

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA M A C O N DIVISION M E L IS S A LAWSON, P la i n t i f f , v. J A M E S WELLS, ADMIRAL M E R C H A N T S MOTOR FREIGHT, A N D LINCOLN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, D e fe n d a n ts . ___________________________________ : : : : : : : : : : : :

Civil Action No. 5:09-CV-155(HL)

ORDER A Pretrial Conference was held in this matter on November 16, 2010. This Order memorializes the Court's rulings from the bench. A. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend P la in tiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 37) is denied as moot. Counsel for Plaintiff w ith d re w the Motion during the Pretrial Conference. B. Defendants' Motion in Limine Defendants' Motion in Limine (Doc. 39) is granted as outlined below. 1. D e fe n d a n ts ' motion to exclude any evidence of the size and financial worth of D e fe n d a n ts is granted. 2. D e fe n d a n ts ' motion to exclude any reference to the existence of liability in s u ra n c e is granted.

Dockets.Justia.com

3.

D e fe n d a n ts ' motion to exclude any argument that the jury should "send a m e s s a g e " to the trucking industry is granted.

4.

D e fe n d a n ts ' motion to exclude any testimony or reference to Plaintiff's ability o r inability to pay bills is granted. However, Plaintiff may present evidence a b o u t the medical expenses she has incurred as a result of this accident and w h a t balances are owed to her medical providers, if any. Defendants may p re s e n t evidence as to whether Plaintiff had an agreement with any of her m e d ic a l providers as to how and when payment would be made.

5.

D e fe n d a n ts ' motion to exclude any reference to verdicts in other cases is g ra n te d .

6.

D e fe n d a n ts ' motion to exclude any argument that the jury should put th e m s e lv e s in Plaintiff's place is granted.

7.

D e fe n d a n ts ' motion to exclude any argument or testimony regarding the v e ra c ity of a witness is granted.

8.

D e fe n d a n ts ' motion to exclude any argument that money damages are in e ffe c tiv e to fully compensate Plaintiff is granted.

9.

D e fe n d a n ts ' motion to exclude any argument that commercial truck drivers s h o u ld be held to a higher standard of care than other drivers is granted.

10.

D e fe n d a n ts ' motion to exclude any testimony or reference to Plaintiff's m is c a rria g e is granted.

2

11.

D e fe n d a n ts ' motion to exclude any evidence or argument that Plaintiff's p ro p e rty damage claim was settled is granted. Counsel for Plaintiff may point o u t that this case has nothing to do with property damage, but instead is only a b o u t personal injury.

12.

D e fe n d a n ts ' motion to exclude any improper and prejudicial statements in o p e n in g and closing arguments is granted.

C.

Plaintiff's First Motion in Limine P la in tiff's First Motion in Limine (Doc. 45) is granted, in part, and denied, in

p a rt, and the Court reserves ruling, in part. 1. P la in tiff's motion to exclude any evidence of collateral source benefits is g ra n te d . Counsel for the parties are ordered to redact any references to c o lla te ra l source benefits contained in Defendants' Exhibit 7, the bill from Dr. D a x e s Banit. 2. T h e Court reserves ruling on Plaintiff's motion to exclude information about h o w counsel was located or hired. This concerns the document(s) where P la in tiff gave her physician(s) permission to release her records to her a tto rn e y 's office. 3. P la in tiff's motion to exclude information about her fee arrangement with c o u n s e l is granted.

3

4.

P la in tiff's motion to exclude any testimony or argument that Defendants are n o t covered by liability insurance or that any Defendant would be personally lia b le for the amount of any judgment rendered in the case is granted.

5.

P la in tiff's motion to exclude any testimony or argument that any Defendant is a person or company of modest means who cannot afford to pay a substantial ju d g m e n t is granted.

6.

P la in tiff's motion to exclude any testimony or reference to medical records or m e d ic a l testimony which has not been admitted into evidence is granted.

7.

T h e Court reserves ruling on Plaintiff's motion to exclude any testimony or a rg u m e n t that Plaintiff was not wearing her seatbelt at the time of the a c c id e n t.

8.

P la in tiff's motion to exclude any testimony that any Defendant is sorry or re g re ts the occurrence of the accident is granted.

D.

Plaintiff's Second Motion in Limine P la in tiff's Second Motion in Limine (Doc. 55) granted, in part, and denied, in

p a rt, and the Court reserves ruling, in part. 1. T h e Court reserves ruling on Plaintiff's motion to exclude any testimony or re fe re n c e to an emergency room report from Houston Medical Center dated A p ril 1, 2004.

4

2.

P la in tiff's motion to exclude any testimony or reference to radiology results for x -ra y s or CT scans taken at Houston Medical Center dated July 20, 2004 is g ra n te d .

3.

T h e Court reserves ruling on Plaintiff's motion to exclude any testimony or re fe re n c e to an e-mail dated September 7, 2010 from Jason Slate to Dannette B ro o k s .

4.

T h e Court reserves ruling on Plaintiff's motion to exclude any testimony or re fe re n c e to a patient intake sheet from Dr. George Stefanis' office (D e fe n d a n ts ' Exhibit 28) or a letter dated April 9, 2007, sent by Kenneth S. N u g e n t, P.C. to Dr. Kevin Baggett.

5.

P la in tiff's motion to exclude any testimony, deposition, or reports submitted b y Dr. Barry McCasland is denied. Counsel for the parties stated during the P re tria l Conference that they would come to an agreement between th e m s e lv e s as to Dr. McCasland's deposition and any rebuttal depositions m a d e necessary as a result of Dr. McCasland's testimony. The parties are d ire c te d to inform the Court, in writing, not later than 5:00 p.m. on November 2 2 , 2010 as to their agreement about the remaining expert depositions. The C o u rt will not entertain or rule on objections made during any depositions ta k e n after the Pretrial Conference.

6.

T h e Court reserves ruling on Plaintiff's motion to exclude any testimony or re fe re n c e to a patient questionnaire (Defendants' Exhibit 4), where Plaintiff 5

authorized Dr. Banit's office to release information about her medical care to h e r attorney's office. 7. T h e Court reserves ruling on Plaintiff's motion to exclude any testimony or re fe re n c e to a survey (Defendants' Exhibit 5) where Plaintiff mentions her "n e e d to know the results of myelogram and plan of action from here in order to settle case." 8. P la in tiff's motion to exclude any testimony or reference to collateral source b e n e fits is granted. Any information about insurance should be redacted prior to trial. 9. T h e Court reserves ruling on Plaintiff's motion to exclude any testimony or re fe re n c e to Plaintiff's interrogatory responses. E. D e fe n d a n ts ' Motion to Strike D e fe n d a n ts ' Motion to Strike (Doc. 68) is denied as moot. Counsel for D e fe n d a n ts withdrew the Motion at the Pretrial Conference. F. Defendants' Motion to Exclude D e fe n d a n ts ' Motion to Exclude Demonstrative Evidence Used During Dr. D a x e s Banit's Video Deposition (Doc. 70) is granted, in part, and denied, in part. The M o tio n is granted as to the videotape, but is denied as to the photograph as Counsel fo r Defendants did not bring the portion of the Motion regarding the photograph to th e Court's attention during the Pretrial Conference.

6

G.

Deposition Objections C o u n s e l for the parties are directed to attempt to resolve the objections made

d u rin g the depositions of Drs. Banit and Stevenson. If any objections cannot be re s o lv e d by agreement, counsel are directed to notify Mary Beth Hand, law clerk to J u d g e Lawson, not later than November 22, 2010 at 5:00 p.m., in writing at M a ry _ H a n d @ g a m d .u s c o u rts .g o v , and specify by line and page number which o b je c tio n s remain. H. Objections to Exhibits D e fe n d a n ts ' objections as to Dr. Banit's bill for services are reserved. I. Deposition of Claudette Gunn T h e deposition of Claudette Gunn was previously taken for discovery p u rp o s e s . The parties have agreed that Defendants may read the discovery d e p o s itio n into evidence as Ms. Gunn is unavailable for trial. Counsel for Defendants is directed to provide to counsel for Plaintiff the portions of Ms. Gunn's deposition he in te n d s to read into the record not later than November 19, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. If c o u n s e l for Plaintiff object to any of the proposed testimony, they should inform Ms. H a n d , in writing, not later than November 22, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. S O ORDERED, this the 17 th day of November, 2010. s / Hugh Lawson HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE m bh 7