Grieco v. Tecumseh Products Company et al

Filing 59

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 12/11/2013. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
JOHN A. GRIECO,
Plaintiff,
V

.

4:12-cv-195

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS COMPANY
and TECUMSEH COMPRESSOR
COMPANY,
Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion
in Limine. ECF No. 53. Defendants request
exclusion of statements regarding 1) "size
and corporate or financial status of
Defendants," id. at 1; 2) other incidents,
complaints, or lawsuits involving
Defendants; 3) offers of compromise; 4)
Defendants' insurance; and 5) various
improper and inflammatory arguments. Id.
Plaintiff objects to this motion as untimely
and prospective, as well as on the ground
that voir dire questioning about the
insurance providers is relevant and
necessary.' ECF No. 56.
Because the Court ordered parties to
submit a new pretrial order following the
pretrial conference, ECF No. 52, filing all
motions in limine prior to the pretrial
conference would have been impracticable.
Therefore, this motion is timely. See Local
Rule 7.4.

First, size and corporate or financial
status of the Defendant is indeed irrelevant
to this case, so the Court GRANTS
Defendants' motion as to this material
pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401
and 403. Second, other incidents or lawsuits
involving the Defendants also show nothing
of the adequacy of the warning as to this
Plaintiff, so the Court GRANTS Defendants'
motion as to this material pursuant to
Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403.
Finally, it is a well-settled principle that
public policy and Federal Rule of Evidence
408 prohibit reference to settlement
discussions, so the Court GRANTS the
motion in limine as to that material.
The Plaintiff may not offer evidence of
insurance to establish fault of the
Defendants, Federal Rule of Evidence 411,
but the Court will voir dire the panel as
necessary to ensure a fair and impartial Jury.
To that end, the Court DENIES the fourth
portion of the motion.
The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that
the request to prohibit "various" improper
and inflammatory arguments is too
prospective for a ruling, so that portion of
the motion is DENIED. The attorneys are
reminded of their professional duties to
opposing parties and counsel.

This/a day of December 2013.

f

~

B /AVANT EFENF1ELD, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT OURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
.

Plaintiffs also state no intention to make any
arguments or elicit testimony in regards to the first
three portions of the motion. ECF No. 56.