Golan et al v. Veritas Entertainment, LLC et al

Filing 410

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Dr. Leininger's Motion in Limine [ECF No. 390 ] is GRANTED, in part and DENIED, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dr. Leininger's Motion in Limine [ECF No. 391 ] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 8/3/17. (EAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
RON GOLAN, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14CV00069 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on issues raised at the pretrial conference and in the
parties’ motions in limine.
I.

Dr. Leininger’s Prior Representation Motion in Limine [ECF No. 390]
At the pretrial conference, the Court asked the parties to if they could agree to a

stipulation as to what may be asked of witnesses about prior legal representation. The parties
were unable to agree to a stipulation. The Court finds if an attorney asks questions of a former
client at trial, Plaintiffs’ counsel may cross examine the witness by asking if the witness was
previously represented by the attorney who did the questioning. No further questions will be
permitted, by any counsel, about Defendants’ prior legal representation.
II.

Dr. Leininger’s Personal Wealth Motion in Limine [ECF No. 391]
The Court also asked the parties if they could come to an agreement as to what could be

introduced related to Dr. Leininger’s personal wealth. The parties were, again, unable to agree.
The Court finds counsel will not be permitted to ask questions, introduce evidence, or insert into
argument Dr. Leininger is a billionaire or any specifics related to his wealth, such as his net
worth or specific assets he owns. Counsel may state he is wealthy. If the parties wish to enter

1

into evidence any exhibits which include statements about the amount of his wealth or specific
assets, those exhibits shall be redacted to exclude this information and may instead state he is
wealthy. The Court will instruct the jury the Court ordered the redactions.
III.

Voir Dire
The parties asked the Court to include additional questions in the voir dire asked by the

Court. The revised questions submitted by the parties are acceptable to the Court and will be
asked by the Court during voir dire. The Court erred in answering a question about alternate
jurors at the pretrial conference. There will be eight jurors qualified to serve. All eight will
deliberate to a unanimous verdict. Six jurors are needed to deliberate, so two of any of the eight
could be excused if necessary.
IV.

Questions by Jurors
The parties were asked to confer as to whether jurors would be permitted to ask questions

of witnesses throughout the trial. Defendants ask jurors be permitted to ask written questions.
Plaintiffs object to this suggestion. The Court will not permit jurors to ask questions.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Dr. Leininger’s Motion in Limine [ECF No. 390] is
GRANTED, in part and DENIED, in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dr. Leininger’s Motion in Limine [ECF No. 391] is
GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
Dated this 3rd Day of August, 2017.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2