Papin v. University of Mississippi Medical Center et al

Filing 215

ORDER granting 210 Second Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge Kristi H. Johnson on 08/30/2022. (ERM)

Case 3:17-cv-00763-KHJ-FKB Document 215 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPH PAPIN
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-763-KHJ-FKB

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL
CENTER

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Dr. Joseph Papin’s Second Motion in Limine
[210]. For the following reasons, the motion is granted.
I.

Background
Dr. Papin sued the University of Mississippi Medical Center (“UMMC”) after

it terminated his employment as a surgical resident in 2017. The only remaining
issue for trial is whether UMMC breached the terms of the House Officer Contract
[144-3] (“Contract”) in terminating Dr. Papin’s employment, and if so, the damages
he is entitled. On September 22, 2021, the Court entered an Order granting, among
other things, UMMC’s Amended Motion in Limine [175] to exclude any reference to
Dr. Papin’s damages for loss of future income beyond the Contract’s expiration.
[192] at 7. Dr. Papin has now filed a motion in limine relating to that Order. [210].
II.

Standard
“The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in

advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence.”

Case 3:17-cv-00763-KHJ-FKB Document 215 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 3

Tate v. Zaleski, 2:19-cv-63-TBM-MTP, 2021 WL 5811965, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 7,
2021) (citation omitted). A motion in limine seeks to prevent opposing counsel from
“mentioning the existence of, alluding to, or offering evidence on matters so highly
prejudicial to the moving party that a timely motion to strike or an instruction by
the court to the jury to disregard the offending matter cannot overcome its
prejudicial influence on the jurors’ minds.” Parker v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 499 F. Supp.
3d 297, 299 (S.D. Miss. 2020) (quoting O’Rear v. Fruehauf Corp., 554 F.2d 1304,
1306 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977)). Granting of a motion in limine “does not preclude the
party sponsoring the evidence from revisiting the issue at trial,” but the issue must
be raised “outside the jury’s presence.” Id. (citation omitted).
III.

Papin’s Motion in Limine

Dr. Papin seeks to exclude any reference to: the Court’s Order [192] barring
reference at trial to Dr. Papin’s damages for loss of future income beyond the
Contract’s expiration; any potential appeal by Dr. Papin of that Order; and
available damages if he succeeds on appeal. UMMC counters that, for the jury to
award damages, it must consider evidence of Dr. Papin’s loss of future income. But
UMMC presented previously to the Court that “all argument of counsel and
evidence of lost future income after the expiration of the one year [C]ontract should
be excluded as not relevant and would lead to confusion of the issues for the jury.”
[175] at 2; [176] at 3–4 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403). As discussed supra, the
Court granted UMMC’s motion. The Court will not entertain UMMC’s newly raised
contradictory argument.

2

Case 3:17-cv-00763-KHJ-FKB Document 215 Filed 08/30/22 Page 3 of 3

This Order does not prohibit the parties from discussing at trial the Contract
or Dr. Papin’s maximum recoverable income damages, which are restricted to the
Contract’s one-year term. Accordingly, the parties may mention Dr. Papin’s loss of
future income as it pertains to that one-year term. To the extent that the parties
seek to discuss Dr. Papin’s maximum recovery of damages accrued after the
Contract’s expiration, such discussion is prohibited.
IV.

Conclusion
The Court has considered all challenges raised by the parties. Challenges not

addressed would not have changed the outcome of the Court’s decision. For these
reasons, Dr. Papin’s Second Motion in Limine is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this this 30th day of August, 2022.
s/ Kristi H. Johnson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3