Lachute v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation

Filing 21

ORDER granting in part and denying in part MOTION 17 in Limine to filed by Steven Lachute. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/15/12.(jjs, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
STEVEN LACHUTE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-2783

OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION

SECTION: R

ORDER & REASONS
Plaintiff moves the Court to exclude one of defendant’s
experts pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403. For the
following reasons, plaintiff’s motion in limine is granted in
part and denied in part.
I.

BACKGROUND
Steven Lachute is suing Ochsner Clinic Foundation

(“Ochsner”) for medical malpractice. Lachute underwent surgery at
Ochsner Hospital on January 29, 2007 and claims that Ochsner’s
care caused him injuries.1 Specifically, because of Ochsner’s
alleged failures to adequately and timely treat Lachute’s postsurgery complications, Lachute lost fingers, toes, part of his
leg, and part of his foot.2
At trial, Ochsner seeks to introduce Dr. Jeffrey Griffin and
Dr. John Hunt as experts. Lachute alleges that these two experts

1

R. Doc. 1.

2

R. Doc. 1; R. Doc. 20 at 3.

will present cumulative testimony and asks this Court to exclude
one or the other.3
II.

DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court may exclude

relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of “needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403; see also Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. V.
Guynes, 713 F.2d 1187, 1193 (5th Cir. 1983) (noting that “[i]t is
well within the discretion of a district court to limit the
number of expert witnesses who testify at trial”).
Dr. Griffin’s and Dr. Hunt’s report address the same four
questions about Lachute’s care at Ochsner and come to the same
four conclusions.4 However, Ochsner contends that each witness
has a different specialty and will focus their testimony on
different issues. Dr. Griffin, defendant asserts, is a colon and
rectal surgeon. Dr. Griffin served on the medical review panel in
this case and will be testifying about the medical review process
and opinion. Unlike Dr. Griffin, Dr. Hunt is a critical care
doctor and will testify about the management of the Lachute’s
vasopressors and the care of Lachute in the days following his
surgery.5

3

R. Doc. 17-1.

4

R. Doc. 17-3; 17-4.

5

R. Doc. 19.
2

Cumulative evidence “replicates other admitted evidence.”
Henson v. Odyssea Vessels, Inc., NO. 07-613, 2008 WL 449726, at
*1 (E.D. La. Feb. 15, 2008) (citation omitted). The Court has
reviewed both expert reports and determined that their answers
give similar reasoning and conclusions with regards to the first
three questions. Accordingly, the Court finds that presenting
both experts on these issues will be unduly cumulative and the
defendant is required to chose one expert to address them.
The doctors’ answers to question four, pertaining to the
management of Lachute’s septic shock, are not repetitive. In Dr.
Hunt’s answer, he discusses the use of vassopressors,6 while Dr.
Griffin makes no mention of the use of vassopressors in the
management of Lachute’s septic shock.7 Finally, Dr. Griffin’s
testimony is not cumulative of Dr. Hunt’s testimony to the extent
he speaks about the medical review panel process and the panel’s
opinion.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is granted to the extent
that the expert’s seek to testify to the first three questions
addressed in their reports, but denied as to the fourth question
pertaining to the management of Lachute’s septic shock, and
denied with regards to Dr. Griffin’s testimony about the medical
review panel and opinion.

6

R. Doc. 17-4 at 2.

7

R. Doc. 17-3 at 5.
3

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion is granted in
part and denied in part.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of November, 2012.
__

_________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4