Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company

Filing 114

ORDER AND REASONS denying 77 Motion in Limine Exclude Video Deposition of Marti George. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KEVIN JORDAN
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-1226

ENSCO OFFSHORE COMPANY
Defendant

SECTION: “E” (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Kevin Jordan’s motion in limine to exclude the video
deposition of Marti George as cumulative. 1 The motion is opposed. 2 For the reasons that
follow, the motion is DENIED.
Defendant, ENSCO Offshore Company, has taken the depositions of both (1) Marti
George, Plaintiff’s former mother-in-law, and (2) Joanna Jordan, Plaintiff’s ex-wife.
Plaintiff maintains “[b]oth Mrs. Jordan and Ms. George testified that Plaintiff accidently
injured his left index finger with a knife and then went to work.” 3 Plaintiff thus argues
that “Ms. George’s testimony is the same as her daughter’s” and should be excluded as
cumulative. In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek to exclude Joanna Jordan’s deposition
testimony, essentially arguing that the Defendant should be limited to calling one or the
other, but not both, at trial.
As Defendant points out, Marti George’s deposition is “a mere 11 minutes long.”4
Furthermore, the Court finds the testimony of both Mrs. Jordan and Mrs. George may be
needed by the Defendant, given that Mrs. Jordan and the Plaintiff are divorced and her
testimony may be subject to attack based on her bias against the Plaintiff. 5 The exclusion

R. Doc. 77.
R. Doc. 85.
3 R. Doc. 77-1 at 1.
4 R. Doc. 85 at 1.
5 See R. Doc. 85 at 1–3.
1

2

1

of neither Ms. George’s nor Mrs. Jordan’s testimony as cumulative is warranted. The
Court takes this opportunity, however, to note that time at trial will be limited, so the
parties must make every effort to use their trial time effectively and efficiently and to avoid
cumulative testimony.
Additionally, in Plaintiff’s reply brief, Plaintiff noted that the “meet and confer
between counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for ENSCO unfortunately failed to reach an
agreement to remove much of the colloquy in Mrs. Jordan’s deposition.” 6 As the Court
expressed at the Pre-Trial Conference, all colloquy between counsel must be removed
from the deposition testimony that will be played at trial, with no exception. To the extent
colloquy between counsel remains in a witness’s deposition testimony, the testimony may
not be presented to the jury.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 13th day of May, 2016.

______ ____
______ _ ________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

R. Doc. 96-2 at 1.
2