Sutton v. Owners Insurance Company

Filing 60

ORDER: OVERRULED as moot 33 Motion in Limine; SUSTAINING 34 Motion in Limine; RESERVING, SUSTAINING, SUSTAINING in part and DENYING in part 43 Motion in Limine; SUSTAINING 44 Motion for Leave of Court for Attorney to Testify to Attorney Fees and Argue Case; and SUSTAINING 54 Motion in Limine. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 5/9/2016. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

PETE SUTTON,
Plaintiff and
Defendant-in-Counterclaim
Case No. 7:15-CV-21 (HL)
v.
OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant and
Plaintiff-in-Counterclaim.

ORDER
A pretrial conference was held in this case on April 15, 2016. During the
conference, Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine (Doc. 43), Defendant’s Motions in Limine
(Docs. 33, 34), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court for Attorney to Testify to
Attorney Fees and Argue Case (Doc. 44) were heard. Following the conference,
Plaintiff and Defendant filed a Joint Motion in Limine (Doc. 54). The Court enters
the following order on those motions.
I.

JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE WITH RESPECT TO MERCURY INSURANCE
CLAIM (Doc. 54)
The parties consent to this motion. It is SUSTAINED.

II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE (Doc. 43)
A.

Employment of Counsel/Fees

Plaintiff moves to exclude any reference or suggestion regarding the time
or circumstance under which Plaintiff employed any of his attorneys, or any
reference or suggestion regarding the existence of a contingency fee
arrangement between Plaintiff and his counsel.

Defendant agrees that the

circumstances under which Plaintiff hired his attorneys are not relevant to the
issues presented; however, the circumstances may become relevant during the
presentation of evidence on the parties present at the time Plaintiff was
examined under oath or demands for payment that were made.

Defendant

further responds that it does not plan to reference the existence of any
contingency fee arrangements, unless it becomes an appropriate subject for
cross-examination. The Court RESERVES ruling on the admissibility of this
evidence.
B.

Effect of Claims on Insurance Rates

The parties consent to this motion. It is SUSTAINED.
C.

Impeachment on Collateral Issues

Plaintiff moves to exclude extrinsic evidence to prove or disprove issues
that are collateral to the subject matter of the case.

Defendant agrees that

impeachment on collateral issues is generally prohibited by the Federal Rules of
Evidence, but does not believe Plaintiff is entitled to a ruling “prohibiting Defense
2

counsel from engaging in such conduct during trial.” The Court agrees. The
Court RESERVES ruling on the admissibility of this evidence.
D.

Use of Exhibits During Opening Statement

Plaintiff moves the Court to rule, in advance of trial, that graphics,
photographs, portions of letters, and a timeline of events may be used by
Plaintiff’s attorney during her opening statement. Prior to the pretrial conference,
the parties reached an agreement on this motion, whereby Plaintiff’s attorney will
be permitted to use exhibits that Defendant has agreed in advance are
admissible during her opening statement.

Accordingly, the motion is

SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART.

Plaintiff’s attorney is

permitted to use exhibits during her opening that Defendant has agreed are
admissible.
III.

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
A.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Prohibit Mention at Trial that
Mercury Insurance Paid Pete Sutton For His Van Insurance
Claim (Doc. 33)

This motion is OVERRULED as moot, in light of the Joint Motion in Limine
With Respect to Mercury Insurance Claim (Doc. 54).
B.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine Regarding the Non-Prosecution
of the Plaintiff in Any Criminal Proceeding (Doc. 34)

The parties consent to this motion. It is SUSTAINED.

3

IV.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT FOR ATTORNEY TO
TESTIFY TO ATTORNEY FEES AND ARGUE CASE (Doc. 44)
The parties consent to this motion. It is SUSTAINED. Plaintiff’s attorney

will be permitted to testify as to her fee, and will submit an exhibit outlining and
justifying her fee. She will be subject to cross-examination.
SO ORDERED, this the 9th day of May, 2016.
/s/ Hugh Lawson_________________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
les

4