Hammer v. JP's Southwestern Foods, LLC et al

Filing 314

ORDER ruling parties' objections to proposed voir dire questions (Doc. Nos. 283, objecting to 281; and 285, objecting to 280). Signed on 7/11/12 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
STEVEN E. HAMMER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
) No. 08-0339-CV-W-FJG
JP’S SOUTHWESTERN FOODS, L.L.C.
)
d/b/a JOSE PEPPER’S BORDER GRILL &
)
CANTINA; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER
Pending before the Court are the parties’ objections to proposed voir dire questions
(Doc. Nos. 283, objecting to 281; and 285, objecting to 280). The Court’s rulings on the
specific objections follow.1 However, at the outset, the Court notes that its practice is to do
the majority of the voir dire itself, giving each side 10 minutes to ask any questions not
covered by the Court. That practice will be followed in this case as well, and the parties will
be allowed 10 minutes each to ask questions not covered by the court and where the other
sides’ objections have not been sustained (as seen below). Furthermore, for the parties’
reference, the Court will indicate below where the questions proposed by the parties will
be asked by the Court.
I.

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE
QUESTIONS (Doc. No. 283)
A.

1

INTRODUCTION

Notably, there is significant overlap between the issues presented in the parties’
proposed voir dire. To the extent that both sides have presented argument on a
particular issue, that issue is dealt with in the context of the rulings to the objections to
plaintiff’s proposed voir dire (Section I of this Order).

1.

Plaintiff in this case is an individual by the name of Steven E. Hammer.

Objection: Plaintiff identifies himself as an individual but fails to disclose that he is acting
as a class representative.
Ruling: For defendant. However, the Court will ask this question.
2.

Seated at the counsel table representing plaintiff are R. Frederick
Walters and Bruce V. Nguyen from the firm of Walters Bender
Strohbehn and Vaughan, P.C. in Kansas City, Missouri and Kelly
McClelland and Ryan McClelland of McClelland Law Firm, P.C. in
Liberty, Missouri. Also seated at plaintiff's counsel table is Ms. Joanne
Haake, Paralegal.

Objection: There is no need to identify the locations of the parties' counsel. Plaintiff seeks
to do this to engender support from the local jury.
Response: This section will give the Court the opportunity to introduce the parties and their
respective counsels.
Ruling: Objection overruled. The Court will ask this question.
3.

Defendant in this case is JP's Southwestern Foods, LLC d/b/a/ Jose
Pepper's Border Grill & Cantina. Seated at the counsel table
representing Defendant JP's Southwestern Foods, LLC d/b/a Jose
Pepper's Border Grill & Cantina are James K. Borcia of Tressler LLP
in Chicago, Illinois, and Joseph Gagnon of the Gagnon Law Firm,
LLC, in Lathrop, Missouri.

Objection: There is no need to identify the locations of the parties' counsel. Plaintiff seeks
to do this to engender support from the local jury.
Response: This section will give the Court the opportunity to introduce the parties and their
respective counsels.
Ruling: Objection overruled. The Court will ask this question.
B.

EXPLANATION OF VOIR DIRE PROCEDURE

Voir dire is a time when the court and, if necessary, the attorneys for each of the parties will
ask questions of members of the panel. After the questions are asked and answered by
members of the panel, then the members on the panel will be reduced to six (6) persons
and two (2) alternates who will serve as the jury.
Objection: This section is not necessary.
2

Response: This will provide meaningful guidance and direction to the panel members about
the voir dire process.
Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will advise the jury on these issues.

C.

IMPORTANCE OF VOIR DIRE

Note-Defendant makes the following objection to the entire "Importance of Voir Dire"
Section.
Objection: This section is not necessary.
Response: This will provide meaningful guidance and direction to the panel members about
the voir dire process.
Ruling: The Court will advise the jury in its own manner on the subjects covered in
this section.
D.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In 2003, Congress amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act through the
amendment of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (also known as
"FACTA"), to assist in the prevention of identity theft as well as credit card
and debit card fraud. FACTA provides in relevant part:
[N]o person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the
transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of
the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt
provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or
transaction.
FACTA gave merchants who accept credit cards and/or debit cards up to
three years to comply with its requirements, requiring full compliance with its
provisions no later than December 4, 2006.
On August 30, 2007, Mr. Hammer was a customer at Jose Pepper's on NW
Barry Road and paid for his food and drink with his Visa credit card. The
credit card receipt that was given to Mr. Hammer by Jose Pepper's had
printed on it his entire credit card number and expiration date. The credit card
receipt was in violation of FACTA.
Objection: This section is neither necessary nor proper in the context of voir dire.
Response: This will provide a general statement about the facts of this case and give the
3

panel members some background regarding the nature of this proceeding. This is
necessary for an effective and meaningful voir dire.
Ruling: Objection is overruled. However, the parties are ORDERED to craft a oneparagraph joint statement of the case to be read by the Court. This statement shall
be submitted on or before MONDAY, JULY 23, 2012.
E.

ACQUAINTANCE WITH PLAINTIFF
7.

Does anyone on the panel or any of your immediate family or friends
know of or ever heard of Kathryn J. Hammer, Kerry L. (Hammer)
Schindler or Emily K. (Hammer) McClain?

Objection: There is no need to introduce Plaintiff's children. They are not witnesses to the
case, have nothing to do with the case, and are interjected merely to gain jury sympathy.
Response: Defendant has listed Kathryn J. Hammer (Plaintiff's wife) on its own Proposed
Witness List. Thus, whether anyone on the panel or any of the panel's immediate family
knows Mrs. Hammer (or her children), is necessary to determine if improper bias exists.
Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will be asking this question.
F.

KNOWLEDGE OF DEFENDANT
9.

Does anyone on the panel or any of your immediate family or friends
know of, or ever heard of, Mr. Charles Erwin? Mr. Erwin currently
resides in North Carolina.

Objection: There is no need to identify the location of Mr. Erwin or his residence. Plaintiff
seeks to do this to engender support from the local jury. Also, Mr. Erwin is no longer an
owner in JP's.
Ruling: Objection overruled. The Court will ask this question.
10.

Mr. Edward J. Gieselman is also the owner or part owner of several
other corporations and/or limited liability companies in the States of
Missouri and Kansas. Each of the corporations and/ or limited liability
companies owns and operates a separate restaurant. I will read you
a list of the corporations and/or limited liability companies, the name
and location of the restaurant, and the owner and ownership
percentage for each to see if you are familiar with any of Mr.
Gieselman's companies or restaurants:

[Plaintiff then lists all 11 LLCs, Restaurant Names, Restaurant Addresses, and Mr.
4

Gieselman's Ownership percentage in each.]
Objection: Such is done by Plaintiff to give a false picture of Defendant's financial situation
and to seek to have the jury make non-parties liable for Plaintiff's claim. This is also in
violation of this Court's in limine order (ECF Doc. No. 201 p. 8).
Response: Such inquiries are necessary to determine if improper bias exists.
Ruling: Objection sustained.
11.

Has any member of the panel or any of your immediate family or
friends ever been to, visited, ate at or been a patron of any of the
restaurants previously listed?
a.
If so, which restaurant were you at?
b.
When was the last time you were at the restaurant?
c.
How many times have you been in one of the restaurants?
d.
Did you pay cash or by credit card?
e.
If you paid by credit card, did you look at your receipt to see if
all your credit card numbers and expiration date were listed on
your copy of the receipt.
f.
Anything about that experience that would affect your duties as
a juror?

Objection: Such is done by Plaintiff to give a false picture of Defendant's financial situation
and to seek to have the jury make non-parties liable for Plaintiff's claim. This is also in
violation of this Court's in limine order (ECF Doc. No. 201 p. 8).
Response: Such inquiries are necessary to determine if improper bias exists.
Ruling: Objection sustained. These questions may only be asked as to the
restaurant in question in this case.
12.

Has any member of the panel or any of your immediate family or
friends ever been employed at any of the restaurants previously
listed?
a.
If so, which restaurant?
b.
What were your duties?
c.
Do you know of Mr. Edward J. Gieselman?
d.
Were you told who Mr. Edward J. Gieselman was when you
were hired?
e.
When did you begin your employment?
f.
Are you still employed there?
g.
When did your employment end?
h.
If you are no longer employed there, did the employment
5

I.
j.

relationship terminate satisfactory to you?
Anything about that experience that would affect your duties as
a juror?
If you were the plaintiff in this case, wouldn't you feel more
comfortable if members of the jury panel had not worked or
been employed by any of the restaurants owned by Mr.
Edward J. Gieselman in this case?

Objection: Such is done by Plaintiff to give a false picture of Defendant's financial situation
and to seek to have the jury make non-parties liable for Plaintiff's claim. This is also in
violation of this Court's in limine order (ECF Doc. No. 201 p. 8).
Response: Such inquiries are necessary to determine if improper bias exists.
Ruling: Objection sustained.
13.

Mr. Edward J. Gieselman is also affiliated with some other LLC's by
the names of Jose Pepper's Restaurants, LLC, Jose Pepper's 3, LLC,
Jose Pepper's Liberty, LLC and Espinaca, LLC.

Objection: Such is done by Plaintiff to give a false picture of Defendant's financial situation
and to seek to have the jury make non-parties liable for Plaintiff's claim. This is also in
violation of this Court's in limine order (ECF Doc. No. 201 p. 8).
Response: Such inquiries are necessary to determine if improper bias exists.
Ruling: Objection sustained.
14.

Has any member of the panel or any of your relatives or friends ever
heard of Jose Pepper's Restaurants, LLC, Jose Pepper's 3, LLC, Jose
Pepper's Liberty, LLC and Espinaca, LLC?

Objection: Such is done by Plaintiff to give a false picture of Defendant's financial situation
and to seek to have the jury make non-parties liable for Plaintiff's claim. This is also in
violation of this Court's in limine order (ECF Doc. No. 201 p. 8).
Response: Such inquiries are necessary to determine if improper bias exists.
Ruling: Objection sustained.
15.

Mr. Edward J. Gieselman is also 100% owner of a corporation by the
name of Northstar Restaurants, Inc. Mr. Gieselman is the President,
Secretary, Treasurer and only Board of Director of Northstar
Restaurants, Inc. Northstar manages Jose Peppers Border Grill and
6

Cantina through a management agreement.
Objection: Such is done by Plaintiff to give a false picture of Defendant's financial situation
and to seek to have the jury make non-parties liable for Plaintiff's claim. This is also in
violation of this Court's in limine order (ECF Doc. No. 201 p. 8).
Response: Northstar was responsible for providing "management services" to Defendant
JP's restaurant during the time period in question. Defendant also listed several employees
of Northstar on its Proposed Witness List. Thus, such inquiries are necessary to determine
if improper bias exists.
Ruling: Objection overruled. This question will be asked by the Court.
16.

Has any member of the panel or any of your relatives or friends ever
heard of Northstar Restaurants, Inc.?

Objection: Such is done by Plaintiff to give a false picture of Defendant's financial situation
and to seek to have the jury make non-parties liable for Plaintiff's claim. This is also in
violation of this Court's in limine order (ECF Doc. No. 201 p. 8).
Response: Northstar was responsible for providing "management services" to Defendant
JP's restaurant during the time period in question. Defendant also listed several employees
of Northstar on its Proposed Witness List. Thus, such inquiries are necessary to determine
if improper bias exists.
Ruling: Objection overruled. This question will be asked by the Court.
17.

Mr. Gieselman through his restaurants and companies also sells
products in grocery stores. Jose Pepper's Espinaca and Salsa dips
are sold at local Hen House, Hyvee's and Price Chopper grocery
stores.
a.
Has any member of the panel or any of your immediate family
or friends ever purchased either of the Jose Pepper's dips at
your local grocery store?
b.
Is there anything about purchasing and eating Jose Pepper's
Espinaca and/or Salsa dips that would affect your duties as a
juror?

Objection: Such is done by Plaintiff to give a false picture of Defendant's financial situation
and to seek to have the jury make non-parties liable for Plaintiff's claim. This is also in
violation of this Court's in limine order (ECF Doc. No. 201 p. 8).
Ruling: Objection overruled. This question will be asked by the Court.

7

G.

ACQUAINTANCE WITH COUNSEL

Objection to entire section: There is no need to identify the geographical locations of the
parties' counsel. Plaintiff again seeks to do this to engender support from the local jury.
Also, Plaintiff seeks to bias the jury against Defendant with comparing the size of the law
firm representing the Defendant with the size of the law firms representing Plaintiff. There
is no need for the jurors to hear all of the members of Plaintiff's firm, and Plaintiff proposes
that not be done with Defendant's firm and suggests the sarcastic and prejudicial comment
"I will not read the names of the attorneys at the Tressler LLP law firm" to suggest that JP's
is being represented by a large law firm.
Response: Such inquiry is necessary to determine if improper bias exists.
1.

Plaintiff Steven E. Hammer is represented by two (2) separate law
firms. One of the law firms is Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan,
P.C. with its office in downtown Kansas City, Missouri in the City
Center Square building at 1100 Main Street.

Ruling: Objection sustained.
2.

Have you or any members of your immediate family ever been
employed by the Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, P.C. law
firm?

Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire as to these matters.
3.

Has any member of the panel or any of your relatives or friends ever
been involved in a legal transaction or proceeding in which Walters
Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, P.C. represented one of the parties?

Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire as to these matters.
4.

Now I am going to read you the names of each member of the law
firm of Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, P.C., and I want you to
raise your hand as I read the list if any of your or your immediate
family are acquainted, either personally, professionally, by reputation,
or have had any work done by any of the names I read: [Plaintiff then
lists 21 names.]

Ruling: Objection overruled; if plaintiffs wish to ask this question, however, they
must use the 10 minutes given to them by the Court.
5.

I've asked about whether your personally have had dealings with this
law firm; this question is directed to representation of your businesses
8

employers. Has Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, P.C., or any
or
members of the firm that I just read to you, ever represented any
business with which you have been connected? This question is not
limited to just this type of litigation but to any other matter.
Ruling: Objection overruled.
6.

Are any members of the panel or your immediate family or friends
acquainted personally or socially with any lawyers or employees of
Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, P.C.?

Ruling: Objection overruled.
7.

The other law firm that represents Mr. Steven E. Hammer is the
McClelland Law Firm, P.C. with its office in Liberty, Missouri in the
Flagship building.

Ruling: Objection overruled.
8.

Have you or any members of your immediate family ever been
employed by the McClelland Law Firm, P.C.?

Ruling: Objection overruled.
9.

Has any member of the panel or any of your relatives or friends ever
been involved in a legal transaction or proceeding in which the
McClelland Law Firm, P.C. represented one of the parties?

Ruling: Objection overruled.
10.

Now I am going to read to you the names of each member of the
McClelland Law Firm, P.C. and I want you to raise your hand as I read
the list if any of you or your immediate family are acquainted, either
personally, professionally, by reputation, or have had any work done
by any of the names I read: [Plaintiff then lists 4 names.]

Ruling: Objection overruled; if plaintiffs wish to ask this question, however, they
must use the 10 minutes given to them by the Court.
11.

I've asked about whether your personally have had dealings with this
law firm; this question is directed to representation of your businesses
or employers. Has the McClelland Law Firm, P.C. or any members of
the firm that I just read to you, ever represented any business with
which you have been connected? This question is not limited to just
9

this type of litigation but to any other matter.
Ruling: Objection overruled.
12.

Are any members of the panel or your immediate family or friends
acquainted personally or socially with any lawyers or employees of the
McClelland Law Firm, P.C.?

Ruling: Objection overruled.
13.

Defendant JP's Southwestern Foods, LLC d/b/a Jose Pepper's Border
Grill & Cantina is represented by two law firms. The first law firm is
Tressler LLP, located in Chicago, Illinois. The law firm of Tressler LLP
has more than 135 attorneys practicing in seven offices across the
country. I will not read the names of the attorneys at the Tressler LLP
law firm.

Ruling: Objection sustained; the Court will inquire about this information.
14.

Have you or any members of your immediate family been employed
by the Tressler LLP law firm?

Ruling: Objection overruled.
15.

Has any member of the panel or any of your relatives or friends ever
been involved in a legal transaction or proceeding in which Tressler
LLP represented one of the parties?

Ruling: Objection overruled.
16.

I've asked about whether you personally have had dealings with
Tressler LLP; this question is directed to representation of your
businesses or employers. Has Tressler LLP, or any members of the
firm ever represented any business with which you have been
connected? This question is not limited to just this type of litigation but
to any other matter.

Ruling: Objection sustained.
17.

Are any members of the panel or your immediate family or friends
acquainted personally or socially with any lawyers or employees of the
Tressler LLP law firm?

Ruling: Objection sustained.
10

18.

Defendant JP's Southwestern Foods, LLC d/b/a Jose Pepper's
Border Grill & Cantina is also represented by Joseph Gagnon of the
Gagnon Law Firm LLC, located in Lathrop, Missouri.

Ruling: Objection overruled.
19.

Have you or any members of your immediate family been employed
by the Gagnon Law Firm LLC?

Ruling: Objection overruled.
20.

Has any member of the panel or any of your relatives or friends ever
been involved in a legal transaction or proceeding in which the
Gagnon Law Firm LLC represented one of the parties?

Ruling: Objection sustained.
21.

I've asked about whether you personally have had dealings with
Gagnon Law Firm LLC; this question is directed to representation of
your businesses or employers. Has the Gagnon Law Firm LLC, or any
members of the firm ever represented any business with which you
have been connected? This question is not limited to just this type of
litigation but to any other matter.

Ruling: Objection sustained.
22.

Are any members of the panel or your immediate family or friends
acquainted personally or socially with any lawyers or employees of the
Gagnon Law Firm LLC?

Ruling: Objection overruled.
K.

DAMAGES
1.

The FACTA statute provides that when a merchant willfully displays
more than the last five digits of the credit card number on a receipt
that damages at a minimum of $100.00 up to a maximum of $1,000.00
shall be awarded without actual damages or proof of actual identity
theft
a.
Does anyone have a problem or concern awarding statutory
damages when there are no actual damages?
b.
If so, why?
c.
If the Court instruct you that statutory damages shall be
11

d.
e.
f.

awarded when there is no actual damages, will you follow the
Court's instruction?
Does anyone have a problem or concern awarding statutory
damages when there is no proof of actual identity theft?
If so, why?
If the Court instructs you that statutory damages shall be
awarded when there is no proof of actual identity theft, will you
follow the Court's instruction?

Objection: There is no need for this section. Also, this section is argumentative, and Plaintiff
attempts here to interject his theory of the case and to test the waters to determine jury
support for his claim.
Response: This is necessary to determine whether a panel member has an improper bias
against statutory damages provisions as a whole, this specific statutory damage provision,
or the availability or award of statutory damages without the presence of actual damages.
These inquiries are specifically designed to determine if panel members will follow the
Court's guidance with respect to the statutory damages available in this case.
Ruling: Objection sustained.
M.

INSURANCE
Defendant makes the following objection to the entire "Insurance" Section:

Objection: Plaintiff's attempt to interject insurance into this case is improper and in violation
of the Court's in limine order. (ECF Doc. No. 201 p. 6-7).
Response: Such questions will not imply that Defendant is insured or that the matter of
insurance or lack of insurance is to be considered in reaching a verdict. Thus, such
inquiries are necessary to determine if improper bias exists.
1.

Has any member of the panel, your immediate family or friends ever
been employed by either Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company,
Armco Insurance Company and Haake Insurance Companies?

Ruling: Objection sustained.
2.

Has any member of the panel, your immediate family or friends ever
had an insurance policy with either Argonaut Great Central Insurance
Company, Armco Insurance Company or Haake Insurance
Companies?

Ruling: Objection sustained.
12

3.

Has any member of the panel, your immediate family or friends ever
owned stock or been a shareholder in either Argonaut Great Central
Insurance Company, Armco Insurance Company and/or Haake
Insurance Companies?

Ruling: Objection sustained.
N.

LENGTH OF TRIAL
This trial should last one week or five trial days. We generally hear evidence
from about 8:30 a, to about 5:00 pm, with a morning break, a lunch break and
an afternoon break. Does any member of the panel have any medical
problems or medical situations in their immediate family which are of such
concern to you that you will not be able to serve for one week?
Is there anything extraordinary happening in your work or family life that
would distract you from attentively hearing this case?
Does anyone have a medical condition that will affect your ability to hear
evidence for this length of time?
Does anyone have anything they need to discuss with the Judge out of
hearing of the rest of the panel?

Objection: This section is not necessary or proper in the context of voir dire.
Response: Such inquiries are necessary for an effective and meaningful voir dire.
Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire as necessary into these matters.
N [sic].

ORDER OF PROOF

Defendant makes the following objection to the entire "Order of Proof" Section:
Objection: This section is not necessary or proper in the context of voir dire.
Response: Such inquiries are necessary for an effective and meaningful voir dire.
1.

As you know, during the course of this trial, someone has to go first.
In this case, as in all cases, Plaintiff, which is Steven E. Hammer, gets
to offer his opening statement and evidence first. Lawyers sometimes
always want to offer their case first because they believe a jury tends
to believe what they hear first. This is called primacy. In this case,
Defendant JP's Southwestern Foods, LLC d/b/a Jose Pepper's Border
Grill & Cantina will present their evidence after Plaintiff Steven J.
13

Hammer. Knowing this order of proof, is there anyone here who
believes they will tend to believe Steven E. Hammer's evidence
merely because they hear it first?
Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.
2.

All parties as you know are entitled to a fair and just consideration of
the evidence. If there is anyone who would tend to believe Steven E.
Hammer's evidence merely because he is the Plaintiff?

Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.
3.

Is there anyone who would tend to disbelieve JP's Southwestern
Foods LLC d/b/a Jose Pepper's Border Grill & Cantina's evidence
merely because it is the Defendant?

Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.
4.

If you are selected as a juror in this case you will be required to put
aside any feeling of passion or prejudice and decide this case solely
on the evidence introduced during the trial and the instructions that
the court will give you concerning the law. Will you do that?

Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.
5.

Does any of you know of any reason why you think that you could not
sit in this case and render a just, fair, honest, and impartial verdict?

Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.
6.

The judge will instruct you at the close of the case on the legal rules
which you will apply. Is there anyone here who will not be able to
follow these instructions? If your own view is that the law should be
different, would anyone here not follow the court's direction anyway?

Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.
7.

Is there anyone on the panel who has any preconceived ideas or
other attitudes which would cause any of you not to follow the Court's
instructions regarding the burden of proof if that instruction is given?

Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.
8.

Has anyone had any experience that makes them unhappy or
14

uncomfortable sitting as a juror in this case?
Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.
9.

Is there anything else any of you think we should know about you as
we get ready to begin this case?

Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.
10.

Anyone know anyone else on the jury or in the courtroom?

Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.

II.

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE
QUESTIONS (Doc. No. 285)

G.

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS
2.
Do you understand that a corporation is entitled to the same treatment
as an individual under the law?

Objection: The proposed language is argumentative and prejudicial, and should be stricken
from the voir dire proceedings. Plaintiff would suggest the following modification, which
contains a neutral inquiry: "Does everyone understand that all persons, including
corporations, stand equal before the law?"
Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.

H.
BURDEN OF PROOF
Plaintiff makes the following objection to the entire "Burden of Proof" Section:
Objection: Defendant's proposed inquiries are argumentative and prejudicial, and highly
slanted in Defendant's favor. Such questions imply that Plaintiff's lawsuit is without merit,
and that the party filing the lawsuit has a high burden to overcome. Defendant has also
craftily attempted to raise doubt with the panel regarding the Plaintiff's "entitlement" to
recover damages. In any event, such burden of proof instructions are more properly
provided to an empanelled jury through appropriately worded jury instructions.
1.

Do you understand that anyone may file a lawsuit and that the mere
filing of a lawsuit does not mean that the lawsuit has any merit?
15

Ruling: Objection sustained.
2.

Do you understand that the law requires that a party filing a lawsuit,
in this case Steve Hammer, has the burden of proof?

Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.
3.

Do you understand that in addition to proving his claim, Plaintiff also
has the burden to show that he or she suffered damages that he or
she is entitled to recover?

Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.
4.

If you are selected as a juror, will you agree to hold Plaintiff to his
burdens of proof?

Ruling: Objection sustained. The Court will inquire into these matters as necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
Dated: July 11, 2012
Kansas City, Missouri

16