Meyer et al v. Currie Tech Corp. et al

Filing 197

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part the motions in limine (Filing Nos. 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , and 168 ) with several issues reserved for trial as set forth in this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MARCIE MEYER and MICHAEL MEYER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CURRIE TECH CORP. and ACCELL NORTH
AMERICA, INC.,

8:16CV542
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on (1) thirty-five motions in limine (Filing Nos. 154 through
167) filed by defendants Currie Tech Corp. and Accell North America, Inc. (“defendants”) and
(2) nine motions in limine (Filing No. 168) filed by plaintiffs Marcie Meyer and Michael Meyer
(the “Meyers”). 1 These motions are now fully briefed and ready for the Court’s determination.
The Court has reviewed all the materials submitted by the parties in this matter and rules as
follows:
A.

Defendants’ Motions in Limine.
1.
2.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 2 (Filing No. 154) is granted.

3.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 3 (Filing No. 154) is granted.

4.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 4 (Filing No. 154) is granted as to any per
diem arguments and otherwise reserved for trial.

5.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 5 (Filing No. 154) is granted.

6.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 6 (Filing No. 154) is reserved for trial.

7.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 7 (Filing No. 154) is reserved for trial.

8.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 8 (Filing No. 154) is granted.

9.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 9 (Filing No. 154) is granted.

10.

1

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 1 (Filing No. 154) is granted.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 10 (Filing No. 154) is granted. The Court
notes that the parties may briefly reference the location of law firms in voir

Counsel are reminded that Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1(a)(1)(A) requires that a motion that
raises a substantial issue of law be supported by a separate brief.

dire examination to determine if a potential juror is aware of or did business
with any of the law firms or attorneys involved.
11.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 11 (Filing No. 154) is granted.

12.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 12 (Filing No. 154) is reserved for trial but
may be subject to plaintiff’s establishing some duty to keep records.

13.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 13 (Filing No. 154) is granted.

14.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 14 (Filing No. 154) is reserved for trial. The
Court cautions plaintiff however that arguments or statements which appear
to be designed to engender passion or prejudice will not be allowed.
Moreover, recklessness is not an issue before the Court.

15.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 15 (Filing No. 154) is granted unless truly
for the purpose of impeachment.

16.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 16 (Filing No. 154) is granted.

17.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 17 (Filing No. 154) is reserved for trial.

18.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 18 (Filing No. 154) is granted.

19.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 19 (Filing No. 154) is granted.

20.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 20 (Filing No. 154) is granted in part.
Counsel can ask in voir dire about a juror’s thoughts about verdict levels.
Counsel may not seek to exact any type of “pledge” or other promise from
the jury.

21.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 21 (Filing No. 154) is granted.

22.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 22 (Filing No. 154) is reserved for trial.

23.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 23 (Filing No. 155) is granted.

24.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 24 (Filing No. 156) is granted.

25.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 25 (Filing No. 157) is granted in part.
Counsel may discuss the location of certain companies for purposes of
background but may not refer to such companies by their location, or
otherwise use such information to engender prejudice or sympathy.

26.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 26 (Filing No. 158) is granted insofar as to
any statement or question seeking to impose a non-existent standard of care.

27.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 27 (Filing No. 159) is reserved for trial.
However, the Court expresses hesitation as to the relevance of such manuals
and is concerned about unfair prejudice, undue delay, and confusing and
misleading the jury.

28.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 28 (Filing No. 160) is reserved for trial.
However, the Court expresses hesitation as to the relevance of such patents
and is concerned about unfair prejudice, undue delay, and confusing and
misleading the jury.

2

29.
30.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 30 (Filing No. 162) is reserved for trial.

31.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 31 (Filing No. 163) is granted.

32.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 32 (Filing No. 164) is reserved for trial.

33.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 33 (Filing No. 165) is reserved for trial. The
Court again questions the relevance of such information and is concerned
about unfair prejudice, undue delay, and confusing and misleading the jury.

34.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 34 (Filing No. 166) is granted.

35.

B.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 29 (Filing No. 161) is reserved for trial.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine 35 (Filing No. 167) is reserved for trial, but
subject to and in accordance with the Court’s prior rulings (Filing No. 135)
on the defendants’ Daubert Motion (Filing No. 108).

The Meyers’s Motions in Limine (Filing No. 168).
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 1 is reserved for trial, but subject to the Court’s
previous ruling that defendant is estopped from denying that it is a
manufacturer.

2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 2 is granted as to the strict-liability claim.

3.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 3 is reserved for trial.

4.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 4 is reserved for trial.

5.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 5 is denied.

6.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 6 is reserved for trial.

7.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 7 is granted.

8.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 8 is reserved for trial.

9.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine 9 is reserved for trial, however, any such
evidence must be supported by medical or other expert testimony regarding
the effect of tobacco use on life expectancy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 28th day of February 2019.
BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
United States District Judge

3