Farris v. Brevard et al

Filing 89

ORDER denying Defendant's 84 Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on July 18, 2016 (dsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
TIMOTHY M. FARRIS

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-25-KS-MTP

DR. BRENT BEVARD

DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Brent Bevard’s Motion In Limine [84]. After
considering the submissions of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that
this motion is not well taken and should be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
This action centers around a Contract for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate, in which
Defendant Brent Bevard (“Defendant”) entered to buy a house located at 76 Classic Drive,
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, owned by Plaintiff Timothy M. Farris (“Plaintiff”). In its Order [76] on
June 10, 2016, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [54] and granted in part
and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [56], finding the Defendant liable on
Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and reserving ruling on the remedies issue and on Defendant’s
counterclaims of tortious interference with a business relationship and abuse of process claims. This
matter is currently scheduled for a bench trial beginning on August 1, 2016.1
II. DISCUSSION
In his Motion In Limine [84], Defendant requests that the Court exclude any witness that was
not disclosed to him through the Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses on November 17, 2015, and to

1

Due to scheduling conflicts on the Court’s docket, this trial date will likely be postponed.
The Court shall discuss alternative trial dates with parties at the pretrial conference scheduled for
July 21, 2016.

exclude any documents not produced prior to the end of the discovery. The Court would note that
Defendant does not specify which witnesses or documents he wishes to exclude. He instead invites
the Court to issue a blanket exclusion with no further information, which the Court is reluctant to
do.
Even if it were inclined to issue such blanket exclusions, the Court does not find Defendant’s
arguments for exclusion persuasive. Ordinarily, Plaintiff is given until thirty (30) days before trial
to disclose any fact witnesses he will or may call. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(B). Defendant does not
argue that Plaintiff did not meet this deadline and has presented no evidence that would lead the
Court to believe that this deadline was not met. Therefore, his motion will be denied as to the
exclusion of witnesses.
Additionally, though documents not provided through discovery are subject to exclusion,
there are instances, such as with new evidence as Plaintiff points out in his response, where those
documents should not be excluded. In such cases, where the new documents are timely disclosed
and there is no prejudice to the other party, exclusion is not appropriate. Again, without the specific
documents Defendant seeks to have excluded before it, the Court is not able to make a proper ruling
on this issue. Defendant’s motion will therefore be denied as to the exclusion of documents as well.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion In Limine [84]
is denied.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 18th day of July, 2016.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2