Blevins v. Henry Doorly Zoo

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling 44 Defendant's Motion in Limine; taking under advisement 50 Defendant's Objection to deposition. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (SMS, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA W E N D Y J. BLEVINS, Plaintiff, v. H E N R Y DOORLY ZOO, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

8 :0 7 C V 2 8 5

M E M O R A N D U M AND ORDER

T h is matter is before the court on the defendant's motion in limine, Filing No. 44, and d e fe n d a n t's objections to the deposition of Sarah Hasslinger, Filing No. 50. In the motion in lim ine , defendant seeks exclusion of evidence of a dog-bite received by the plaintiff's d a u g h ter, media coverage of the incident, and related medical treatment as unduly prejudicial, irre le v an t, and confusing. The plaintiff contends the evidence is relevant to the issue of m itig a tio n of damages. Defendant also raises relevancy, foundation and hearsay objections to the deposition testimony of Sarah Hasslinger. Although the motion in limine is an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure th e expeditious and evenhanded management of the trial proceedings, performing a g a tek e e p ing function and sharpening the focus for later trial proceedings, some evidentiary s u bm is s io n s cannot be evaluated accurately or sufficiently by the trial judge in such a p roc e d u ral environment. Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7 th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine is appropriate for "evidentiary submissions that clearly o u gh t not be presented to the jury because they clearly would be inadmissable for any p u rpo s e ." Id. In other instances, it is necessary to defer ruling until during trial, when the trial jud g e can better estimate the impact of the evidence on the jury. Id. To the extent that a p a rty challenges the probative value of the evidence, an attack upon the probative sufficiency

o f evidence relates not to admissibility but to the weight of the evidence and is a matter for the trier of fact to resolve. United States v. Beasley, 102 F.3d 1440, 1451 (8th Cir. 1996). T h e court is unable to evaluate the relevance of the challenged evidence in the context o f a pretrial motion. Defendant's concerns may warrant a cautionary or limiting instruction, b u t the court cannot determine the ambit of such an instruction at this time. The court will a d m it the evidence at issue only on a showing that it is relevant to the issues in the case, and o n ly to the extent that the relevance of the evidence outweighs its potential to cause prejudice o r confusion under Fed. R. Evid. 403. The court finds the motion can be adequately resolved a t trial, either in a hearing immediately prior to commencement of the trial, as an objection w ith a sidebar, or with a review of the evidence outside the presence of the jury. Accordingly, the court finds that the motion in limine should be overruled at this time, without prejudice to its reassertion via timely objection to the admissibility of such evidence at trial. Defendant's o b jec tion s to the deposition testimony will be ruled on at trial. IT IS ORDERED: 1 . Defendant's motion in limine (Filing No. 44) is overruled without prejudice to rea s s e rtion at trial. 2 . Defendant's objections to the deposition of Sarah Hasslinger (Filing No. 50) are tak e n under advisement and will be ruled on at trial. Dated this 3rd day of December, 2008. B Y THE COURT:

s / Joseph F. Bataillon Chief District Judge

2