Lee v. Rollinger et al

Filing 81

ORDER: Paragraphs 1, 3 and 6-8 of Plaintiffs 52 Motion in Limine are overruled and Paragraphs 2 and 5 are sustained. The court reserves ruling on Paragraph 4, as the parties agreed to work towards a joint stipulation on this issue. The 54 Fed.R. Evid. 609 Motion is granted. SubparagraphsA-H and J-L of Defendants 55 Motion in Limine are sustained and Subparagraph I is overruled. The 76 Motion to Strike is granted. The 77 Motion to Exclude is granted (see text of Order). Signed by Judge Linda R Reade on 4/1/2019. (skm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
TREVA LEE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No. 16-CV-4126-LRR
ORDER

RICHARD ROLLINGER and BNSF
RAILWAY COMPANY,
Defendants.

The matters before the court are Plaintiff Treva Lee’s Motion in Limine (docket no.
52), which Plaintiff filed on November 8, 2018; Defendants Richard Rollinger and BNSF
Railway Company’s (“Defendants”) Federal Rule of Evidence 609 Motion (docket no. 54)
and Defendants’ Motion in Limine (docket no. 55), which Defendants filed on November
8, 2018; Defendants’ Motion to Strike Dr. Adams’s Report, Exclude Dr. Adams’s
Testimony or Limit the Scope of Dr. Adams’s Testimony (“Motion to Strike”) (docket no.
76), which Defendants filed on March 7, 2019; and Defendants’ Motion to Exclude
Additional Undisclosed Witnesses (“Motion to Exclude”) (docket no. 77), which
Defendants filed on March 12, 2019. On March 28, 2019, the court held a Final Pretrial
Conference, at which the parties addressed their respective motions. See March 28, 2019
Minute Entry (docket no. 80).
For the reasons stated on the record at the Final Pretrial Conference, Paragraphs
1, 3 and 6-8 of Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine (docket no. 52) are OVERRULED and
Paragraphs 2 and 5 are SUSTAINED. The court reserves ruling on Paragraph 4, as the
parties agreed to work towards a joint stipulation on this issue.
For the reasons stated on the record at the Final Pretrial Conference, Defendants’
Federal Rule of Evidence 609 Motion (docket no. 54) is GRANTED.

For the reasons stated on the record at the Final Pretrial Conference, Subparagraphs
A-H and J-L of Defendants’ Motion in Limine (docket no. 55) are SUSTAINED and
Subparagraph I is OVERRULED, as Defendants’ request to prohibit disparaging or
inflammatory remarks about the railroad industry is too general for the court to rule on at
this time.
For the reasons stated on the record at the Final Pretrial Conference, Defendants’
Motion to Strike (docket no. 76) is GRANTED. Dr. Adams’s testimony is limited to his
treatment and care for Plaintiff, which includes the time period of November 2014 through
October 2015.
For the reasons stated on the record at the Final Pretrial Conference, Defendants’
Motion to Exclude (docket no. 77) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 1st day of April, 2019.

2