Murphy et al v. Svoboda et al

Filing 82

ORDER regarding defendants' 73 Motion in Limine and plaintiff's 77 Motion in Limine. The motions are sustained in part and denied in part as outlined in the order. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MARTHA MURPHY, Personal
Representative of the Estate of John M.
Mike Murphy;

8:13CV155

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
EMILY R. SVOBODA, SAUL SOLTERO,
AND SHARON SOLTERO,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court after a hearing on the parties' motions in limine,
Filing No. 73 and Filing No. 77, on November 4, 2015.
1.

Defendants' Motion in Limine

Defendants seek an order prohibiting the plaintiff from offering: (1) any testimony
or evidence concerning John Murphy's physical or mental condition in the weeks and
months following the accident that is not based on personal observation as inadmissible
hearsay; (2) testimony or evidence related to alleged lost wages suffered by John
Murphy in connection with an alleged employment opportunity in Monterey, Mexico, as
speculative; (3) any testimony or evidence regarding insurance coverage as irrelevant
and prejudicial; and (4) any testimony or evidence of defendant Emily Svoboda’s
negligence in connection with the automobile accident as irrelevant in that defendants
have admitted liability.
The court finds the defendants' motion to preclude hearsay evidence of plaintiff
John M. Murphy's condition is sustained in part with the understanding that Fed. R. Civ.
P. 803(3) evidence will be admitted with proper foundation. The court finds the

defendants' motion with respect to evidence of lost wages should be denied, subject to
the plaintiff providing the defendants with the basis of its lost wages claim on or before
November, 16, 2015. The plaintiff concedes that there will not be evidence of insurance
coverage and the defendants' motion in limine is sustained with respect to that
evidence. The defendant's motion to preclude evidence of the negligence of defendant
Emily Svoboda is sustained in part—evidence of the defendant's negligence will be
permitted only to the extent it is relevant and is necessary to provide context. Extensive
evidence or argument regarding texting and driving will not be permitted, but the plaintiff
will be allowed to elicit evidence that defendant Emily Svoboda was negligent in not
keeping a proper look out.
2.

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine

Plaintiff seeks to preclude the defendants from offering or eliciting any of the
following: (1) any reference to any medical records not in evidence; (2) any suggestion
that Defendant would have to pay any judgment personally: (3) any reference to any
payments of accident-related medical bills by an insurer; (4) any reference to Medicare;
(5) any reference to the financial status of either party to this suit; and (6) evidence of
any settlement negotiations.
With respect to the plaintiff’s request regarding medical records not in evidence,
the court understands that the medical documents relied on by expert witnesses in this
case have been produced to both parties. The court finds the motion should be denied
without prejudice to reassertion at trial if any such evidence is offered. To the extent
that the defendants seek to offer or elicit testimony on any new records, the record shall

2

be provided to the plaintiff one day prior to the offer or testimony. The court is not
inclined to admit evidence that has not been produced before trial.
The defendants concede that evidence suggesting personal payment of any
judgment, references to payments by insurers, references to Medicare, and references
to the financial status of the parties should be precluded and the court accordingly
sustains the plaintiff’s motion with respect to those items. Further, the court finds that
evidence of settlement is improper and the plaintiff’s motion with respect to settlement
negotiations should be sustained.
SO ORDERED.
DATED this 5th day of November, 2015
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge

3