Phelps v. Daimler Trucks North America
Filing
274
ORDER and REASONS denying 162 Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Evidence and/or Reference to Marijuana/THC Results for Ronald Phelps, as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 6/12/2015. (Reference: 13-6685, 13-6686)(cbs) Modified on 6/12/2015 to edit document type (cbs).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MEGAN D. PHELPS, ETC.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 13-6685
c/w 13-6686
DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, LLC
D/B/A FREIGHTLINER, LLC
SECTION āNā (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the "Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Evidence and/or Reference to
Marijuana/THC Results for Ronald Phelps" filed by defendants CRST Expedited, Inc. and CRST
International, Inc. (referred to herein collectively as "CRST") (Rec. Doc. 162). The motion is
opposed by defendant Daimler Trucks North America, LLC ("DTNA") (Rec. Doc. 173). A Reply
Memorandum was filed by movants CRST (Rec. Doc. 193).
In this motion, defendants CRST moved to exclude any evidence regarding marijuana/THC
pertinent to the driver of the vehicle, Ronald Phelps, maintaining that Mr. Phelps, a CRST
Expedited, Inc. employee, "simply veered off of the roadway", arguing such a statement is sufficient.
Nonetheless, the Court agrees with defendant DTNA, in that comparative fault will be an issue at
1
trial, thus placing at issue the cause of the subject accident. The case law cited by both CRST and
DTNA do not dictate the exclusion of such evidence under these circumstances; and admission of
it is not significantly prejudicial to warrant exclusion otherwise.
Therefore, the "Motion in Limine to Exclude Any Evidence and/or Reference to
Marijuana/THC Results for Ronald Phelps" is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12th day of June 2015.
______________________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?