State Farm Life Insurance Company v. Jefferson et al

Filing 97

PRETRIAL ORDER granting in part and denying in part 87 Motion in Limine. Claimant Valerie Smith is hereby DISMISSED as a party. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 5/4/2018. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
LATASHA JEFFERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________

CV 116-085

ORDER
__________
Addressed in turn below are pretrial matters raised in the proposed pretrial order (doc.
no. 85), Claimant LaTasha Jefferson’s motions in limine (doc. no. 87), and the pretrial
conference.
A. Realignment of the Remaining Parties
Jefferson continues to assert the parties should be realigned to reflect dismissal of State
Farm Life Insurance Co. and the burden of proof. As the May 18, 2017 Order explains,
“realignment is neither necessary nor appropriate,” (doc. no. 50, p. 1), and the Court DENIES
the renewed request.

B. Valerie Smith’s Standing
As all counsel agreed at the pretrial conference, Claimant Valerie Smith does not have
standing because the beneficiary form on which she relies designates her as a successor
beneficiary of the interplead funds. The Court hereby DISMISSES her as a party.

C. Occurrences Subsequent to Decedent’s Death
Jefferson requests any “evidence regarding any events occurring after [the decedent’s]
death be excluded because such evidence is irrelevant to the issue of the validity of the change of
beneficiary.” (Doc. no. 87, p. 2.) The Court generally agrees for the reasons stated on the record
at the pretrial hearing.

If any claimant believes an exception to this general rule exists,

arguments shall be made in a detailed evidentiary offer of proof at trial outside the presence of
the jury.

D. Criminal Convictions of Jefferson
The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit introduction of a misdemeanor conviction to
prove a person acted in accordance with a particular character or trait or to attack a witness’s
character for truthfulness.

Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1); 609(a).

The Rules carve out narrow

exceptions for crimes “the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime
required proving—or the witness’s admitting—a dishonest act or false statement” or the use of a
conviction to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence
of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(2); 404(b)(2). Neither exception applies
here.
Claimants David Turner and Beverly Wilcher Whitaker argue evidence regarding
Jefferson’s charges and convictions should be admitted because she failed to disclose them when
asked at her deposition. See Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) (allowing inquiry into specific instances of
witness conduct “if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness”).
“While reference to these individual crimes is inadmissible, [the witness]’s untruthfulness during
her deposition will assist the jury in judging her creditability.” McCranie v. Hoffman Elec. Co.,
No. CV 408-011, 2010 WL 11534308, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2010). Accordingly, the Court

2

GRANTS IN PART Jefferson’s motion. Turner and Whitaker “may reveal to the jury that
[she] lied during her deposition about past criminal convictions, but may not reveal to the jury
the specific crimes or offenses for which she was arrested, absent an independent basis for their
admissibility.” Id.

E. Medical Testimony by Lay Persons
Jefferson requests a prohibition of lay witnesses testifying regarding: (i) the
decedent’s “medical diagnoses or treatment;” and (ii) “statements made by the decedent’s
doctors, nurses or other healthcare providers.” (Doc. no. 87, p. 5.) A lay witness’s opinion is
inadmissible to the extent it is based upon scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge rather than direct observations and perceptions. See Fed. R. Evid. 701. The
Court will not issue a blanket prohibition regarding hearsay, and instead will consider
objections to specific questions at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 802. Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS IN PART Jefferson’s motion in limine as to medical testimony by lay persons.
F. Negotiations and Offers of Settlement
Jefferson requests that the Court “prohibit any argument or innuendo to the jury about
settlement discussions that may or may not have taken place prior to trial.” (Doc. no. 87, pp.
5-6.) Turner and Whitaker agreed to this prohibition during the pretrial conference, and the
Court GRANTS the motion in limine as to this issue.

G. The Remaining Parties’ Financial Condition
Jefferson seeks to exclude evidence of the parties’ financial condition. However,
such evidence is admissible to the extent it shows motive for a party to exercise undue
influence. See Hockensmith v. Ford Motor Co., No. CIV.A. 1:01-CV-3645G, 2003 WL
25639639, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 17, 2003) (“[T]o the extent the financial evidence cited by
3

plaintiffs tends to prove the alleged improper motives of defendant for its engineering design
decisions, the evidence is admissible . . . .”); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Balmer, 672 F.
Supp. 1395, 1407 n.5 (M.D. Ala. 1987), aff’d, 891 F.2d 874 (11th Cir. 1990) (“An insured’s
poor financial condition is competent evidence of a motive . . . .”). Therefore, the Court
DENIES Jefferson’s motion in limine as to the parties’ financial condition.
H. Other Issues
The Court will rule on the issues of burden of proof and marijuana and alcohol use at
trial.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of May, 2018, at Augusta, Georgia.

4