Carr v. Spherion et al
RULING granting in part and denying in part 193 Second MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Affidavit of Roy Page filed by E C O F Inc. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 9/21/09. (crt,DickersonSld, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION
DATE 9' ,ca'ct','-'7 BY________________
MARION CARR VERSUS PLYMOUTH TUBE CO., ET AL
CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-0326 JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES RULING
Before the Court is Defendant ECOF, Inc.'s ("ECOF") Second Motion in Limine. [Doe. No. 1931. ECOF seeks an order precluding pro se Plaintiff Marian Can ("Can") from introducing or referencing at trial, for any purpose, the affidavit of Roy Page ("the affidavit"). Carr intends to introduce the affidavit at trial to establish that "ECOF acquired Turner Machine Company." [Doe. No. 193, Exhibit A]. Introducing or referencing the affidavit for this purpose is inadmissible hearsay. FED. R. EvID. 801-802. The content of the affidavit is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that "ECOF acquired Turner Machine Company." In Can's Response to the Motion in Limine [Doe. No. 206], she does not assert that the affidavit satisfies any of the enumerated or residual hearsay exceptions. See FED. R. EvID. 803-804, 807. ECOF, however, seeks to preclude Carr from introducing or referencing the affidavit/or any purpose. ECOF's request is too broad. Can could introduce or refer to the affidavit to prove something other than the truth of the matter asserted in the affidavit. ECOF's Second Motion in Limine is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent that Carr intends to introduce or refer to the affidavit at trial to establish that "ECOF acquired Turner Machine Company," and DENIED TN PART, to the extent that Carr intends to introduce or refer to the affidavit to prove a matter other than the truth of the matter asserted.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this
day of September, 2009.
ROBERT G. JAM~S) UNiTED STATES bISTRICT JUDGE
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?