Quiggins v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 2/19/13. Motion to Continue is DENIED 157 ; Motion in Limine is SUSTAINED 154 ; Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED 159 ; Motion to Exclude Medical Literature is SUSTAINED in part and DENIED in part 161 ; Motion to Enforce Court Order is SUSTAINED 162 . cc:counsel (DAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-00516-H
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
During a lengthy conference with parties, the Court considered many of the remaining pretrial motions. The Court reached the following conclusions.
Defendant has moved for a continuance in light of recent media coverage of this case and
Corizon. The Court feels that any pre-formed opinions or bias about the parties and the case can be
appropriately taken care of during voir dire.
Defendant has moved to exclude from evidence certain “anatomage” 3-D images. As
discussed in the conference, these images have little probative value as they are not the images used
during treatment, but rather are doctored, post-hoc images that arguably distort reality. As such,
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 bars their admission.
Defendant has moved for reconsideration of this Court’s previous Order (Doc. 156)
excluding the Release and Responsibility Form.1 Given the context of how and when the Form was
signed, it is not admissible under both Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and 403.
This Court note an error in the previous Order: Plaintiff has not conceded that Dr. Anderson advised Plaintiff of the
risks associated with the decision to refuse extraction.
Defendant has moved to exclude medical literature identified in Plaintiff’s bibliography as
it is untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B). Plaintiff’s experts are limited to
the texts and articles that were disclosed to the Defendant in the expert reports and depositions. To
the extent Plaintiff has included in its bibliography medical texts and articles that have not
previously been disclosed, the medical literature is excluded from use at trial.
Lastly, Defendant has moved to enforce a previous Court Order (Doc. 134) in light of recent
depositions in which Defendant claims Plaintiff’s questioning violates the Order’s ruling. Any line
of questioning that does not adhere to this Court’s previous Order is inadmissible.2
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for continuance (Doc. 157) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the “anatomage”
3-D images attached to Dr. Stephen Barclay’s Supplemental Disclosure as Exhibit #2 (Doc. 154)
These images may not be used for any demonstrative purpose at trial and
witnesses are barred from discussing the images.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties will continue to work to resolve issues
identified in Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude certain deposition excerpts (Doc. 158) and
Plaintiff’s motion in limine regarding objections made during trial depositions (Doc.160). The
parties are to advise the Court of matters they are unable to resolve.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 159) is
This Court previously ruled that medical records containing references to “dental abscess” are admissible but the Court
will not allow these references to be used as medical opinions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to exclude medical literature
identified in Plaintiff’s bibliography is SUSTAINED in part and DENIED in part (Doc. 161).
Plaintiff’s experts are limited to the texts and articles that were disclosed to the Defendant in the
expert reports and depositions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to enforce the Court’s October 11,
2012 Order (Doc. 162) is SUSTAINED.
February 19, 2013
Counsel of Record
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?