MOORE v. SHAWMUT WOODWORKING & SUPPLY, INC.

Filing 92

ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE - Defendant's Motions in Limine (Dkt. 72 ) 1, 2, and 4 are GRANTED, but Defendants Motion in Limine 3 is DENIED. **SEE ENTRY**. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/27/2012. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JOHN R. MOORE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SHAWMUT WOODWORKING
& SUPPLY, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:09-cv-1275-TWP-MJD

ENTRY ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motions in Limine [Dkt. 72]. The court
excludes evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly is not admissible for any
purpose. See Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D.
Ill. 1993). Unless evidence meets this exacting standard, evidentiary rulings must be deferred
until trial so questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice may be resolved in context. Id. at
1400-01. Moreover, denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence
contemplated by the motion is admissible; rather, it only means that, at the pretrial stage, the
Court is unable to determine whether the evidence should be excluded. Id. at 1401.
For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion in Limine [Dkt. 72] is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.
A. Defendant’s Motions in Limine (Dkt. 72).
Defendant has filed four motions in limine. The first seeks to bar evidence of liability
insurance. The second seeks to bar opinion testimony of lay witnesses concerning causation
testimony as it relates to Plaintiff’s medical condition, diagnosis, and future medical expenses.
The third seeks to bar the admission of medical records and reports containing expert opinions in
1

the absence of a presentation of a proper foundation. The fourth seeks to bar evidence relating to
offers of settlement and statements made during settlement negotiations. Each of these motions
is addressed in turn.
1. Liability Insurance (Motion in Limine 1)
Citing Fed. R. Evid. 411, Defendant’s motion in limine 1 seeks to bar evidence or any
references that Defendant may be covered by liability insurance for Plaintiff’s claims. In
addition, Defendant seeks to bar Plaintiff from asking any member of the panel during voir dire
as to whether they are directors, officers, or stockholders of an insurance company. Plaintiff has
not responded to this motion in limine, and therefore it is uncontested. Accordingly, Defendant’s
motion in limine 1 is GRANTED.
2. Medical or Expert Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses (Motion in
Limine 2)
Citing Fed. R. Evid. 702, Defendant’s motion in limine 2 seeks to bar opinion testimony
by lay witnesses concerning the causation of any medical condition, diagnosis, future prognosis,
and future medical expenses as it relates to Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff has not responded to this
motion in limine, and therefore it is uncontested. Obviously, Plaintiff will be permitted to testify
about what he perceived and experienced firsthand. See Fed. R. Evid 701(a). Accordingly,
Defendant’s motion in limine 2 is GRANTED.
3. Admissibility of Medical Records Containing Expert Opinions (Motion in
Limine 3)
Defendant’s motion in limine 3 seeks to bar the admission of medical records or reports
containing expert opinions, arguing that such records or reports are not admissible without a
proper foundation. In addition, Defendant argues that medical records or reports containing
expert opinions may not be admitted solely based on the business record exception to the rule

2

against hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid 803(6). To bolster its argument, Defendant relies on the
Indiana Rule of Evidence 803(6) and an Indiana Court of Appeal’s ruling in Schloot v. Guinevere
Real Estate Corp. See 697 N.E.2d 1273, 1277 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (recognizing that medical
records containing expert opinions are not admissible under the business record exception unless
they meet the requirements for expert opinions set forth under Rule 702). However, in diversity
cases, the Federal Rules of Evidence and federal law govern the admissibility of evidence. King
v. Harrington, 447 F.3d 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2006). After conducting its own research, the Court
found on-point authority. With respect to medical records, the Seventh Circuit has ruled that
they are admissible on the issue of causation pursuant to the business record exception under
Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Gipson v. United States, 631 F.3d 448, 453 (7th Cir. 2011); see also
Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 337 (7th Cir. 1998). The Court therefore declines to grant a
general prohibition without first examining the context in which evidence of this nature may be
offered. Defendant will have ample opportunity to object if an insufficient foundation is
presented. Ultimately, courts exclude evidence on a motion in limine only if the evidence clearly
is not admissible for any purpose, it seems premature to do so here. See Hawthorne Partners v.
AT & T Technologies, Inc., 831 F.Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Accordingly, Defendant’s
motion in limine 3 is DENIED.

4. Offers of Settlement (Motion in Limine 4)
Citing Fed. R. Evid. 408, Defendant’s motion in limine 4 seeks to bar evidence relating to
offers of settlement and statements made during settlement negotiations. Defendant is correct
when he argues that the introduction of evidence related to offers of settlement or
communications regarding the same are irrelevant and against public policy of encouraging

3

private settlement of disputes. Further, Plaintiff has not responded to this motion in limine, and
therefore it is uncontested. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion in limine 4 is GRANTED.
B. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motions in Limine (Dkt. 72) 1, 2, and 4 are
GRANTED, but Defendant’s Motion in Limine 3 is DENIED.
SO ORDERED: 02/27/2012

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution to:
Jennifer L. Blackwell
GOODIN ORZESKE & BLACKWELL, P.C
[e-mail]
Charles A. Carlock
Attorney at Law
[e-mail]
John P. Daly Jr.
GOLITKO & DALY, P.C.
[e-mail]
Donald G. Orzeske
GOODIN ORZESKE & BLACKWELL, P.C
[e-mail]

4