Shirrell et al v. Billing et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying 21 Motion in Limine; granting 22 Motion in Limine; denying 23 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion in Limine: As explained in the attached Order, the Court partially grants and partially denies the parties' motions in limine. See Order for details. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 5/11/2018. (soh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID A. SHIRRELL and
STACY SHIRRELL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
RANJIT SINGH BILLING, and
2154720 ONTARIO, INC., an Ontario
Corporation, d/b/a ROADSHIP
FREIGHT SYSTEMS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-0567-MJR-DGW

ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
On April 30, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their motion in limine (Doc. 25, containing 32
sub-parts). Defendants responded on May 7, 2018, and opposed only a portion of
Plaintiffs’ motion. (Doc. 31). Having reviewed the positions of the parties, the Court
rules as follows, using the numbering in Plaintiffs’ motion:
1. Barring reference to proposition that Plaintiffs must prove a specific
dollar amount of damages: Motion is GRANTED by agreement of the
parties.
2. Barring reference to objections or asserted claims of privilege during
discovery and pretrial proceedings: Motion is GRANTED by
agreement of the parties.
3. Barring reference to failure to mitigate damages: Motion is GRANTED
by agreement of the parties.
4. Barring reference to the effect this case will have on insurance
premiums: Motion is GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
5. Barring evidence of tax free investments, Plaintiffs’ ability to live on
accrued interest, and Plaintiffs’ ability to invest any award: Motion is
GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
1|Page

6. Barring reference to tort reform: Motion is GRANTED by agreement
of the parties.
7. Barring evidence of free government medical services that might be
available to Plaintiffs now or in the future: Motion is GRANTED by
agreement of the parties.
8. Barring reference to Plaintiff’s worker’s compensation claim: Motion is
GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
9. Barring reference to whether damage award might cause a financial
hardship on Defendants: Motion is GRANTED by agreement of the
parties.
10. Barring speculation or argument about the substance of the testimony
of any absent or unavailable witness: Motion is GRANTED by
agreement of the parties.
11. Barring reference to Plaintiffs failure to call any witness equally
available to all parties: Motion is GRANTED by agreement of the
parties.
12. Barring reference by Defendants to any ex parte statement or report of
any person not present in court to testify and to be cross-examined by
Plaintiffs’ counsel: Motion is GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
13. Barring reference to the filing of motions in limine, rulings on motions
in limine, or to Plaintiffs seeking to exclude evidence: Motion is
GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
14. Barring reference to receipt, or entitlement to receipt, of benefits from a
collateral source by Plaintiffs: Motion is GRANTED by agreement of
the parties.
15. Barring reference to a portion of Plaintiffs’ claim containing a
subrogation claim owned by an insurance company: Motion is
GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
16. Barring reference to whether or not recovery in this action is subject to
any state or federal taxes: Motion is GRANTED by agreement of the
parties.
17. Barring reference to whether Defendants will have to personally pay
any judgment entered in favor of Plaintiffs: Motion is GRANTED by
agreement of the parties.
18. Barring reference to any unrelated prior or subsequent claims, suits, or
settlements: Motion is GRANTED by agreement of the parties.

2|Page

19. Barring reference to the time or circumstance under which Plaintiffs
employed a lawyer or that a motive, purpose, or result of this action
will be to compensate Plaintiffs’ counsel: Motion is GRANTED by
agreement of the parties.
20. Barring reference to the effect or results of a claim, lawsuit, or
judgment upon insurance rates, premiums, or charges, both generally
and as specifically applied to the parties: Motion is GRANTED by
agreement of the parties.
21. Barring reference to whether Defendants have insurance: Motion is
GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
22. Barring reference to any pre-existing back problems as the cause of
David Shirrell’s ongoing back symptoms due to untimely expert
disclosure: Motion is DENIED.
23. Barring reference to David Shirrell’s current back symptoms as the
result of any pre-existing condition because there was no timely expert
disclosure: Motion is DENIED.
24. Barring reference to reports of symptoms in other parts of the body
than the back and legs: Motion is GRANTED by agreement of the
parties.
25. Barring reference to Plaintiffs being over-treated, receiving
unnecessary treatment, or being negligent in the way they sought
treatment: Motion is GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
26. Barring reference to the quality of medical care afforded to David
Shirrell: Motion is GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
27. Barring argument in closing statement that Plaintiffs have asked for a
greater amount of money than they actually expect to be awarded:
Motion is GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
28. Barring reference to the wealth, poverty, or pecuniary circumstances of
the parties: Motion is GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
29. Barring reference to prior settlements or settlement negotiations
between the parties: Motion is GRANTED by agreement of the
parties.
30. Motion for exclusion of non-party witnesses, including expert
witnesses, from the courtroom prior to testifying and for an order
instructing witnesses not to discuss any aspects of the case amongst
themselves or with others during the course of trial: Motion is
GRANTED by agreement of the parties.
3|Page

31. Barring reference by Dr. Frank O. Petkovich to the testimony or
opinions of Plaintiffs, Dr. Donald Kovalsky, Dr. Matthew Gornet, or
any other witness pursuant to Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence: Motion is DENIED.
32. Barring reference to testimony given by Dr. Donald Kovalsky on crossexamination concerning the likelihood of David Shirrell requiring
future medical care and the cost of such care: Motion is DENIED.
Also before the Court are three motions in limine filed by Defendants on April
30, 2018 (Docs. 21, 22, and 23). Plaintiffs responded to two of the three motions on May
7, 2018. Having reviewed the positions of the parties, the Court rules as follows:
•

•

•

Doc. 21: Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude cumulative
testimony by Plaintiff David Shirrell’s family, friends, co-workers,
neighbors, or acquaintances to which Plaintiffs responded in
opposition (Doc. 33): Motion is DENIED.
Doc. 22: Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude reference to
insurance of Defendants pursuant to Rule 411 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence to which Plaintiffs did not respond: Motion is GRANTED.
Doc. 23: Defendants’ motion in limine to preclude reptile theory trial
tactics by Plaintiffs and their counsel to which Plaintiffs responded in
opposition (Doc. 34): Motion is DENIED as intelligible, unnecessary,
speculative, overbroad, and downright bizarre. Rule 401 will govern
the admissibility of evidence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED May 11, 2018.

s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

4|Page