Kopperud v. Mabry et al

Filing 148

OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine 139 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED with respect to Paragraphs 10 and 12. It is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DEFERS on ruling on Paragraph 3 of the Motion in Limine. The Court will address Paragraph 3 of the Motion in Limine at the February 10, 2016, Pretrial Conference. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 2/7/2016. (anc)

(7) comparison of this case to other claims, cases, injuries, settlements, or verdicts;
(8) comments about arrangements between Plaintiff and his attorneys regarding the
payment of attorneys’ fees; (9) comparison of the filing of a lawsuit to playing the
lottery; (10) reference or suggestion that Defendant is sorry or regrets the
occurrence at issue in this case; (11) suggestion that Defendant has or has not made
an offer to settle this case; (12) any demand or request before the jury for
documents, photographs, or items in the possession of Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s
counsel; and (13) any reference to the Motion being filed, or ruled upon by the
Court. (See Mot. ¶¶ 1-13).
On February 5, 2016, Defendant Mabry (“Defendant”) filed his Response
[145] to the Motion. Defendant agrees that he will not reference the subjects of
Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 13. (Resp. at 1-3). Based on these
representations, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion on these ten topics as moot.
Defendant agrees to the conditions set forth in Paragraphs 10 and 12 of the
Motion. (Id. at 2). Paragraph 10 seeks to prohibit “[a]ny reference or suggestion
that Defendant is sorry or regret[s] the occurrence in question . . . . By the same
token, Plaintiff will not comment upon Defendant[’s] lack of an apology.” (Mot.
¶ 10). Paragraph 12 seeks to prohibit “[a]ny demand or request before the jury for
documents, photographs, or items in the possession of Plaintiff[] or counsel for the

2

Plaintiff[] . . . . Any items in the possession of Plaintiff, or Plaintiff’s counsel,
which are the subject of a valid and properly served subpoena or notice to produce
will be produced outside the presence of the jury at an appropriate time during
trial, upon request.” (Mot. ¶ 12). Upon the agreement of the Defendant, the Court
grants the Motion with respect to Paragraphs 10 and 12.
Defendant objects to Paragraph 3 of the Motion. Paragraph 3 seeks to
prohibit “testimony, argument, comment or innuendo from any other witness,
party, or lawyer that attempts to shift blame to any nonparties because Defendant
did not file the notice of intent to apportion fault to nonparties required by
O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(d).” The Court will address Defendant’s objections to
Paragraph 3 at the February 10, 2016, Pretrial Conference.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine [139] is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED with respect to
Paragraphs 10 and 12. It is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to Paragraphs 1, 2,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 13.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DEFERS on ruling on
Paragraph 3 of the Motion in Limine. The Court will address Paragraph 3 of the
Motion in Limine at the February 10, 2016, Pretrial Conference.

3

SO ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2016.

_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4