Fike v. Thorton et al

Filing 69

ORDER - Defendants' motion in limine, Filing No. 61 , is granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DAVID FIKE,
Plaintiff,

8:12CV113

vs.
ORDER
CHARLES E. THORTON, PRODUCTS
UNLIMITED, INC., COVENANT
TRANSPORT, INC.;
Defendants.

This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion in limine, Filing No. 61.
Defendants submit a brief in support and an index in support of this motion. Filing Nos.
62 and 63. This case involves a car accident wherein plaintiff was injured when he was
pinned between the back of his empty trailer and the back of the full Products Unlimited
trailer. The court has carefully reviewed the motion in limine, including requests “A”
though “O.” The plaintiff has not responded to this motion. The court finds the majority
of these requests can be determined during the trial as the evidence is presented.
Accordingly, the court will not rule on those motions at this time.

However, any

statements regarding insurance coverages are generally not admissible at trial. See
Fed. R. Evid. 411.

So, absent a compelling circumstance, the court will grant the

motion in limine as to insurance coverages. The court will likewise grant the motion as
to the police report made by the Omaha Police Department, as it appears to be
inadmissible hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 802, and it contains information about
Unlimited’s insurance coverage. All other issues may be raised at trial, if indeed they

arise, and the court will determine what is relevant at that time. See Fed. R. Evid. 401403.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion in limine, Filing No. 61,
is granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the
services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of
these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some
other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2