Grant v. Target Corporation

Filing 45

ORDER denying without prejudice the 34 Objection to Trial Exhibits filed by Target Corporation, and denying without prejudice 36 Objection to Trial Exhibits filed by Charity Grant. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 10/26/15. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
CHARITY GRANT,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. CV414-132
TARGET CORPORATION, a foreign
corporation,
Defendant.

ORDER
Before the Court, after referral to the undersigned at the recent
pre-trial conference, see doc. 43 (docketed October 22, 2015), are the
parties' objections to trial exhibits. Docs. 34 (defendant's objections) &
36 (plaintiff's). Plaintiff's consist of nothing more than the exhibit
number, a two or three word description of the exhibit (none of the
exhibits are themselves before the Court), and anywhere from 3-8
conclusory, bullet-pointed objections (e.g., "the materials constitute
inadmissible hearsay," doc. 36 at 1). Because they all lack any useful,
surrounding context, plaintiff's objections are DENIED without
prejudice to her right to renew them at trial.

Target's are not much better. Its objections to exhibits 1, 2, 4-18,
and 20-22 all travel on contingencies that may or may not occur at trial.
See, e.g., doe. 34 at 1 ("Defendant objects to the admissibility of this
video evidence to the extent it is not properly authenticated and a proper
foundation has not been laid for its admissibility."). Exhibit 3's objection
essentially asks, via pure re-argument, for reconsideration of the Court's
prior ruling on Target's motion in limine, compare doe. 33 at 3-4, and 19,

with doe. 34 at 2, while exhibits 19's argues about a deposition not filed
in the record. All of Target's objections, then, just like plaintiffs, lack
necessary context. Hence, Target's objections (doe. 34) also are
DENIED without prejudice to its right to renew them at trial.
SO ORDERED, this, ay of October, 2015.

UNITED ATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2