Gaddy v. Terex Corporation et al
Filing
476
OPINION AND ORDER granting Defendants Terex Corporation, Terex Utilities, Inc., and Terex South Dakota, Inc.'s Motion In Limine No. 5 Exclude The Ongoing NHTSA Investigation Initiated by Plaintiffs Counsel 414 . Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/26/18. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
JEFFREY GADDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:14-cv-1928-WSD
AMERICAN INTERSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Intervenor Plaintiff,
v.
TEREX CORPORATION, TEREX
SOUTH DAKOTA, INC., and
TEREX UTILITIES, INC.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Terex Corporation, Terex
Utilities, Inc., and Terex South Dakota, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants” or
“Terex”) Motion In Limine No. 5 Exclude The Ongoing NHTSA Investigation
Initiated by Plaintiff’s Counsel [414] (the “Motion”).
The parties, in anticipation of trial, have filed a number of motions in limine.
In this Motion, Defendants seek to exclude any evidence or reference to the
ongoing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”)
investigation into Defendants’ pre-2004 XT machines. ([414] at 2). Specifically,
on May 14, 2015, during the fact discovery phase of the case, Plaintiff’s counsel
wrote NHTSA and requested the agency open an investigation into Defendants’
pre-2004 XT machines based on the allegation that the machines are defective and
fail to comply with ANSI A92.2 standards. (Id.). The agency did so. (Id.). The
investigation has not concluded, nor has the NHTSA issued any findings or orders.
(Id.).
Defendants argue that any evidence of the NHTSA investigation is
“irrelevant, any probative value would be outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice to [] Defendants and its tendency to mislead the jury and confuse the
issues in this case, and it constitutes inadmissible hearsay.” (Id. at 2-3). Plaintiff
consents to such an exclusion, but “reserves the right to present any such evidence
to the jury, or impeach Terex witnesses with that documentation/information,
without mentioning that the evidence was filed with NHTSA or otherwise violating
his agreement to abstain from referencing the ongoing NHTSA investigation.”
(Plaintiff’s Response to Terex Defendants’ Motion In Limine No. 5 to Exclude
Reference to the Ongoing NHTSA Investigation Against Terex (“Response”) at 2).
Considering that the parties agree to exclude any evidence of or reference to
the ongoing NHTSA investigation, the Court grants the Motion.
2
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Terex Corporation, Terex
Utilities, Inc., and Terex South Dakota, Inc.’s Motion In Limine No. 5 Exclude The
Ongoing NHTSA Investigation Initiated by Plaintiff’s Counsel [414] is
GRANTED.
SO ORDERED this 26th day of March, 2018.
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?