Robinson v. Academy Louisiana Company, L.L.C. dba Academy Sports + Outdoors

Filing 68

RULING denying 63 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 06/06/2011. (NLT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ANNA L. ROBINSON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 09-771-JJB-SCR
ACADEMY LOUISIANA COMPANY, L.L.C.

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE
Before the Court is Plaintiff Anna L. Robinson’s (“Robinson”) Motion (doc.
63) in Limine. Defendant Academy Louisiana Company, L.L.C. (“Academy”) has
filed an opposition (doc. 67). There is no need for oral argument. This Court’s
jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the reasons stated herein,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
Background
On August 31, 2008, a stack of approximately twenty cots fell upon
Robinson while she was shopping at Academy’s store in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. Thereafter, Robinson filed suit alleging that Academy’s employees
had negligently configured the cots and that she suffered injuries to her spine as
a result of the incident.
On April 4, 2011, Academy notified Robinson’s counsel that it had
identified three physicians which it intended to add to its list of “may call
witnesses”:

Dr. Marykutty Thomas, Dr. Brian Saunders and Dr. Sudherra

Rachamallu (collectively “the Doctors”). The Doctors each treated Robinson for
1

injuries she sustained in subsequent incidents. On February 21, 2009, Robinson
was involved in a motor vehicle accident and thereafter filed suit for injuries to
her neck and back. On July 27, 2009, Robinson slipped and fell at a Church’s
Fried Chicken store and again filed suit for injuries to her neck and back.
On April 27, 2011, Robinson filed a Motion (doc. 63) in Limine to prevent
the Doctors from testifying as to the car accident or slip-and-fall or the treatment
they provided in response. Academy filed its opposition (doc. 67) on May 11,
2011.
Discussion
Plaintiff claims that the Doctors testimony as to the subsequent incidents
or the treatment they provided would be unfairly prejudicial and confusing to the
jury (doc. 63). Defendant asserts that the Doctors’ testimony is necessary to
establish whether and to what extent Robinson’s injuries were the result of the
Academy incident or the subsequent incidents (doc. 67).
The Federal Rules of Evidence define “relevant evidence” as “evidence
having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to
the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be
without the evidence.” Under the Federal Rules, relevant evidence is admissible
unless otherwise proscribed. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Relevant evidence may be
excluded if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.
However, exclusion of relevant evidence on the grounds of unfair prejudice or
2

confusion is “an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly.” 29 Am. Jur. 2d
Evidence § 330 (2011); United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616, 633 (5th Cir.
1982). In lieu of excluding relevant evidence on these grounds, courts often
employ the less drastic measure of issuing a limiting instruction to curb the
evidence’s prejudicial or confusing effect. See, e.g., United States v. Crowely,
533 F.3d 349, 355 (5th Cir. 2008).

In addition, though possibly relevant,

evidence of other acts “is not admissible to prove the character of a person in
order to show action in conformity therewith.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
The Court finds that the evidence is admissible. It is axiomatic that the
plaintiff in a tort suit must establish that the defendant caused his damages and
the extent of his damages. Coutee v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 924 So. 2d 112,
117 (La. 2006). Whether and to what extent Plaintiff’s damages were caused by
the Academy incident or caused or aggravated by the subsequent incidents are
critical issues in the present suit.

Because the Doctors’ testimony has the

tendency to clarify these issues, it is admissible unless barred by some other
provision. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Though Federal Rule of Evidence 403 prohibits
evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice or jury confusion, the Court finds that this is not the case here.
Again, evidence that Plaintiff was involved in two other accidents is highly
probative on the issues of causation and damages. The Doctors’ testimony,
rather than confusing the jury, would likely contribute to the jury’s understanding
of which injuries are attributable to which accident.
3

Moreover, the Court recognizes the danger of unfair prejudice in this case.
The jury might very well infer that Plaintiff’s claims are not meritorious—but
simply the product of her litigious nature—because she has recently filed two
other negligence suits.

Prejudice aside, Defendant simply may not admit

evidence of the other incidents to show that Plaintiff has a history of litigiousness
in order to show that she is simply being litigious in this case. Fed. R. Evid.
404(b).

In either case, however, the Court finds that a limiting instruction

suffices. As such, the Court will only permit the Doctors to testify as to Plaintiff’s
injuries and the extent to which they believe those injuries resulted from the
various incidents. The Doctors will not be permitted to discuss the law suits
relating to the car accident or slip-and-fall.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion (doc. 63) in
Limine.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana this 6th day of June, 2011.

S

JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

4