Grant v. Target Corporation

Filing 38

The Court ORDERS Target to itemize photographs, videos, and documents produced at Elizabeth and Edward Grant's depositions, that it may offer at trial by October 26, 2015 and also Denies re 35 Motion in Limine, though without prejudice to plaintiff's ability to object at trial to the admission of particular pieces of evidence. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 10/12/2015. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
CHARITY GRANT,
Plaintiff,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION, a foreign
corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV414-132

ORDER
Less than a week after the Court ruled on Target’s two motions in
limine (doc. 33), plaintiff Charity Grant moves to exclude evidence that she
anticipates Target will introduce at trial. Doc. 35. Target opposes. Doc.
37.
In its motions in limine, Target sought permission to introduce
evidence rebutting plaintiff’s claimed damages, evidence that Target
obtained at its deposition of plaintiff’s ex-husband’s current wife (Elizabeth
Grant). Doc. 28 at 4. The Court granted Target’s request, but did so
without prejudice to plaintiff’s ability to object, at trial, because it had no
actual evidence (just conjecture and argument) to review. Doc. 33 at 8.
Plaintiff, without any greater specificity than Target offered in its motion,

now moves to exclude that same evidence. Doc. 35.
Grant effectively asks the Court to reconsider its previous ruling. But
reconsideration is only proper “if there is (1) newly discovered evidence, (2)
an intervening development or change in controlling law, or (3) the need to
correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Jersawitz v. People TV,
71 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1344 (N.D. Ga.1999).”

Spencer v. St.

Joseph's/Candler Health Sys., Inc., 2007 WL 1615117 at * 2 (S.D. Ga.
June 4, 2007). Not one of those circumstances exists here.
Nevertheless, plaintiff’s complaint about the disorganized nature of
Target’s production of the deposition evidence has merit. Target, by its
own admission, produced a CD with “voluminous” “photographs, videos,
and documents” from the Grant deposition. Doc. 37 at 3. Despite the
acknowledged possibility that “Target will try and introduce all this
evidence,” it has not itemized the CD. Id.
Although Grant “has had access to the evidence” for almost a year,
id., trial is no longer the game of “hide-the-ball” that it once was.

By

refusing to organize the CD and declare its contents as possible trial
exhibits, Target circumvents the equal footing that disclosure requirements
are meant to create.
The Court therefore: ORDERS Target to itemize the “photographs,

2

videos, and documents produced at Elizabeth and Edward Grant’s
depositions,” that it “may” offer at trial by October 26, 2015 (ten days after
the currently scheduled pre-trial conference),1 id., and DENIES plaintiff’s
motion in limine, though without prejudice to plaintiff’s ability to object at
trial to the admission of particular pieces of evidence.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of October, 2015.

1

This itemization does not include anything more than is already required by the
Court’s pre-trial order. See doc. 26 at 12-13. More specifically, it does not require
Target to reveal how its counsel has arranged his exhibits and evidentiary presentation.
But it does require Target to do more than simply hand over a CD with more than 1,000
files on it. Some additional organization is a must.
3