Bates v. Delmar Gardens North, Inc et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : Upon review of the record and following the final pretrial conference in this case held on the record on November 16, 2017, and for the reasons stated more fully on the open record, the Court sets forth its rulings on the par ties motions in limine and objections to pretrial materials, as follows: Plaintiffs Motion in Limine is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth below. ECF No. 93 . [SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS]. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 11/16/2017. (KCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DELMAR GARDENS NORTH,
INC., et al.,
Case No. 4:15-CV-00783-AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Upon review of the record and following the final pretrial conference in this case held
on the record on November 16, 2017, and for the reasons stated more fully on the open record,
the Court sets forth its rulings on the parties’ motions in limine and objections to pretrial
materials, as follows:
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth
below. ECF No. 93.
1. Emotional Stressors Other than Discrimination: GRANTED, subject to
reconsideration if Defendants demonstrate the relevance of particular evidence,
including how Defendants intend to use such evidence and the contemporaneity of such
evidence with the events at issue in this case.
2. Third-Party Medical Records and Unfounded Lay Opinion Testimony Within Medical
Records: : GRANTED as to opinions regarding Plaintiff’s ability to communicate that
are contained within such records, and DENIED as to statements of Plaintiff made in
connection with obtaining medical services and as to appropriate cross-examination of
Plaintiff regarding facts contained within the records.
“Test” of Plaintiff’s Reading Ability: DENIED as moot.
4. Deaf, Inc. Records: DENIED to the extent such records are relevant to Plaintiff’s
ability to communicate in writing and not cumulative.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Certain Witnesses is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part, as set forth below. ECF No. 94
1. Steve Hebel and List of Gabapentin Products: DENIED as moot, pursuant to the
parties’ agreement that the only purpose of Hebel’s testimony is to lay foundation for
the List of Gabapentin Products.
2. Maria Nash: GRANTED as to any assessment by Nash of Plaintiff’s ability to
communicate, and GRANTED as to other testimony, subject to reconsideration if
Plaintiff opens the door to such testimony. However, the witness may possibly be
permitted to provide fact testimony, subject to Defendants filing a proffer of such
testimony in writing to the Court on or before Monday, November 20, 2017.
Defendants’ Motion in Limine is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as set forth
below. ECF No. 91.
1. Testimony Regarding Hearsay Statements of Non-party Healthcare Providers Who
Have Seen or Treated Plaintiff: DENIED as moot. If a party seeks to introduce such a
statement for the truth of the matter, the party must approach the bench and advise the
Court of what it seeks to offer and what hearsay exception applies.
2. Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures Taken by Defendants: GRANTED
except to the extent that Defendants open the door to such evidence by arguing a lack
of feasibility. In that event, Plaintiff must first approach the bench and advise the Court
of the purpose of such evidence before introducing it.
3. Evidence of Trials of Other DG North Employees: DENIED as moot.
4. Evidence of Defendants’ Net Worth or Financial Status Unless and Until Plaintiff Has
Made a Submissible Case for Punitive Damages: DENIED as moot, with the
understanding that Plaintiff does not seek to introduce such evidence.
5. Evidence of Plaintiff’s Financial Status: DENIED as moot.
6. Dr. Shepard-Kegl’s Testimony Invoking Legal Terms of Art or Drawing Legal
Conclusions: RULING RESERVED. The Court will address this issue by separate
order, as it relates to Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s redacted expert report (ECF
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 16th day of November, 2017.
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?