Jordan v. Ensco Offshore Company
ORDER AND REASONS regarding Defendant's 173 Motion for Clarification of Order and Reasons in Rec. Doc. 165, as stated herein. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/22/2016. (tsf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ENSCO OFFSHORE COMPANY,
SECTION: “E” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant ENSCO Offshore Company’s motion for clarification
of the Court’s Order & Reasons excluding evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking
behavior. 1 Plaintiff Kevin Jordan was granted an opportunity to respond to the motion
for clarification but has not done so.
On May 20, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude
evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior. 2 The Defendant planned to argue at
trial that the “Plaintiff has engaged in drug seeking behavior, manipulating and deceiving
his treating physicians to obtain medication.” 3 Fearing the Defendant would make such
an argument to the jury, the Plaintiff filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude evidence
of his alleged drug seeking behavior. 4 The Defendant opposed the motion, arguing that
evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior “goes to his credibility and . . .
whether he has experienced any pain and injury as he claims in this suit.” 5 The Court
granted Plaintiff’s motion, excluding evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior
and ruling that such evidence may not be brought before the jury. The Court reasoned
R. Doc. 173. The instant motion seeks clarification of Record Document 165, the Order & Reasons granting
Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior.
2 R. Doc. 165.
3 R. Doc. 89 at 4.
4 The motion in limine is on the record at Record Document 75.
5 R. Doc. 89 at 5.
that such evidence would unfairly prejudice the Plaintiff and distract the jury from the
fundamental issues in this case, i.e., whether Plaintiff suffered injury on March 3, 2013
and, if so, to what extent.
Defendant now seeks clarification of the Court’s ruling.
With respect to Plaintiff’s pre-accident medical treatment, medical records, and
alleged drug-seeking behavior, the Court refers the Defendant to its Order & Reasons on
the motion in limine. 6 Pursuant to that ruling, the Defendant is precluded altogether from
cross-examining Plaintiff on these issues or introducing related exhibits into evidence.
With respect to Plaintiff’s post-accident medical treatment and medical records,
the Defendant may cross-examine the Plaintiff on (1) his visits to doctors’ offices and
hospitals, (2) the drugs he was prescribed, and (3) whether he accurately informed his
doctors and other medical care providers of other doctors he was seeing and other
medications he had been prescribed. The Defendant may not, however, question
witnesses or elicit testimony about Plaintiff’s alleged drug addiction or drug seeking
behavior. This will allow the Defendant to adequately cross-examine the Plaintiff on his
credibility and propensity toward truthfulness without delving into the excluded topic of
Plaintiff’s alleged drug seeking behavior.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of May, 2016.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
See R. Doc. 165.
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?