Nesbitt et al v. Bacot et al
ORDER dismissing as moot 36 Motion for Special Verdict Form; granting in part and denying in part 37 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 9/28/17. (jlm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DALLAS NESBITT, individually
and as next friend of A.N., a
minor; and BRIANNA CORDOVA,
individually and as next
friend of A.N., a minor;
CASE NO. CV416-009
Before the Court are Defendant Brittany Bacot's Motion
for Special Verdict Form (Doc. 36) and Motion in Limine
(Doc. 37). Plaintiffs have responded to both motions. (Doc.
43; Doc. 44.) In this case. Plaintiffs allege Defendant's
negligence contributed to the injuries suffered by A.N. as
the result of a multivehicle automobile accident. (Doc. 1.)
after all others were dismissed by stipulation.
Special Verdict Form (Doc. 36) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The
adhere to its usual practice: deciding on an appropriate
draft verdict form after consulting with the parties in a
pretrial conference. Both parties will have an opportunity
to offer argument as to the verdict form at that time.
eight categories of potential evidence and testimony:
Liability insurance of Defendant;
Plaintiffs' anxiety, agony, concern, or worry
concerning medical expenses;
Conversations between Plaintiffs and any treating
physicians or medical care providers;
Objections of counsel made during depositions;
Potential jurors knowledge or affiliation with
Settlements entered into between any Defendants'
liability insurer and Plaintiffs;
Arguments or inferences that the jury should send
a message to the insurance industry.
Plaintiffs have no objections to Defendant's first, fifth,
sixth, and eighth requests. (Doc. 44.) Accordingly, those
portions of Defendant's motion are GRANTED.
In her second request. Defendant seeks to exclude all
evidence or testimony regarding
any anxiety, agony, concern or worry over the
payment of medical bills, any reference to having
to pay for medical bills, having to face medical
bills, paying for medical bills, medical or other
bills or expenses falling on the plaintiffs, or
burdening the plaintiffs, inability to afford or
pay medical bills or any similar reference or
Plaintiffs contend that they should be able to testify as
to obtain such care. (Doc. 44 at 3.)
In light of Defendant's broad request and Plaintiffs'
narrow response, the Court is currently unable to conclude
that this evidence
would be inadmissible. It appears that
inability to afford medical care should Defendant suggest
foregoing such care. Such evidence would be admissible if
failed to mitigate their damages. See McGee v. Jones, 232
Ga. App. 1, 3, 499 S.E.2d 398, 400-01 (1998). Therefore,
context in which Plaintiffs offer this evidence.
may renew her objection at trial.
recitation of any conversation between the plaintiffs and
any treating physicians or medical care providers regarding
anything told to the plaintiffs by said treating physicians
contends that such testimony would be inadmissible hearsay.
(Id.) In response. Plaintiffs argue that statements offered
hearsay. (Doc. 44 at 4.)
Generally, hearsay testimony is inadmissible at trial.
Hearsay testimony is
offered for a reason other than to prove the truth of the
matter asserted in the statement. See id.
In light of Plaintiffs' indication that this type of
testimony will be limited to only non-hearsay statements,
the Court is unable to grant Defendant's request at this
Defendant is correct that much of what she seeks to
Plaintiffs offer this evidence at trial.
Defendant's request is DENIED at this time. If necessary,
Defendant may renew her objection at trial.
In her fourth request, Defendant seeks to exclude "any
reference to or evidence, testimony or argument concerning
objections of counsel during depositions." (Doc. 37 at 4.)
counsel "are not evidence and can only be used to inflame
or mislead the jury." (Id.) In response. Plaintiffs agree
that this type of evidence is inadmissible, but note that
Defendant failed to identify any specific statements that
should be excluded. (Doc. 44 at 4.)
As an initial matter, the Court notes that it rarely
permits lay witnesses to testify by deposition absent some
remotely or by deposition. However, the party seeking to
use deposition testimony as part of its case-in-chief must
first obtain the Court's permission.
objectionable portions of any deposition. As a result, the
Court is unable at this time to determine the admissibility
of any coinments in or portions of depositions. Accordingly,
Defendant's request is DENIED. If necessary, Defendant may
renew her objection prior to or at trial.
In her seventh request. Defendant seeks to exclude any
elicited through a qualified, expert witness. (Id. at 8.)
In their response. Plaintiffs state that they are unaware
of any lay testimony regarding fault. (Doc. 44 at 5-6.) In
addition. Plaintiffs argue that testimony based on personal
injured. (Id. at 6-7.)
admissibility of any specific statement concerning injury
or cause. Expert testimony may be required to establish the
Absent the specific context in which Plaintiffs offer this
this time. If necessary, Defendant may renew her objection
SO ORDERED this
*"day of September 2017.
WILLIAM T. MOORE,
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?