Williams v. University Medical Center Of Southern Nevada et al.,

Filing 216

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 152 Motion in Limine. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 5/10/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

CHARLES WILLIAMS, MD., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

vs.
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, et al.,

11
12

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:09-CV-00554-PMP-PAL
ORDER

13
14

Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2

15

(Doc. #152). At the hearing conducted May 3, 2011, the Court considered the

16

arguments of counsel regarding Plaintiff's fully briefed motion and took the motion

17

under submission.

18

Generally, by his Motion, Plaintiff seeks pretrial ruling on two specific

19

issues: 1. The appropriateness of evidence which may be presented in furtherance

20

of certain of Defendants' affirmative defenses, and 2. The admissibility of a state

21

court decision issued pursuant to Plaintiff's petition for writ in the administrative

22

process. Subsumed within these general requests for relief is series of sub motions,

23

which address particular types of evidence which Plaintiff seeks to exclude from the

24

trial. While the issues raised by Plaintiff do not lend themselves to easy resolution in

25

limine, the Court will endeavor to address each in this order in which they are raised.

26

1. Under the heading "This Court has Already Decided Certain Issues as a

1
2

Matter of Law." Plaintiff seeks to exclude specified "issues of fact" and "issues of

3

law" cited by Defendants in the Joint Pretrial Order (Doc. #138).

4

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2 (Doc. #152) is

5

GRANTED with respect to issues of fact 10, 14, 15, 18, and 19, and as to issue of

6

law 5. Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED with respect to issues of fact 11 and 16, and

7

issue of law 1.

8

2. Under the heading "Defendants Waived Certain Affirmative Defense by

9
10

Failing to Raise them in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment,"

11

Plaintiff again seeks to exclude evidence relating to specified "issues of fact" and

12

"issues of law" asserted by Defendants in the Joint Pretrial Order.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED with respect to

13
14

issue of fact 22, and issues of law 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 23. This ruling does not

15

preclude Defendants right to argue issues of law before the Court relating to any

16

matter which is not properly before the jury for adjudication.

17
18

3. Under the heading "Defendants Raise Certain Affirmative Defenses Fail

19

as a Matter of Law," Plaintiff seeks to exclude from evidence or argument before the

20

jury at trial certain specified "issues of law" raised by Defendants in the Joint Pretrial

21

Order.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED with respect to

22
23

issues of law 7, 10, 11, 13, 20, and 23 provided that Defendants will not be precluded

24

from arguing such issues before the Court, outside the presence of the jury, or

25

post-verdict if necessary.

26

///
2

1
2
3
4

4. Under the heading "Defendants Must be Estopped from Taking
Positions Contrary to those Previously Asserted before this Court."
IT IS ORDERED that the relief requested in subparagraph 4 of Plaintiff's
Motion in Limine is GRANTED.

5
6

5. Under the heading "Defendants Fail to Raise their Affirmative Defense

7

Related to Causation in their Answer, Amended Answer, Motions for Summary

8

Judgment or Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment," Plaintiff

9

appears to argue that Defendants are somehow precluded from offering evidence as

10

to the quality of Plaintiff's performance as a doctor. In this regard, Plaintiff argues

11

that such evidence may only be permitted to further "affirmative defense related to

12

causation." Plaintiff is wrong. Plaintiff bears the burden of proving causation and

13

damages in this case. Defendants are permitted to offer evidence, including the

14

testimony of Dr. Lin, which shows that regardless of the due process accorded

15

Plaintiff in connection with his suspension, Plaintiff still would have been suspended

16

because of various documented quality of care issues.

17
18

IT IS ORDERED that the relief requested in subparagraph 5 of Plaintiff's
Motion in Limine is DENIED.

19
20

Finally, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to exclude, the

21

"Order from the Nevada District Court holding that the Board of Trustees did not act

22

arbitrary or capriciously" is GRANTED.

23

DATED: May 10, 2011.

24
25
26

PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge
3