Manteris v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Filing
160
ORDER Denying without prejudice 105 Addendum to motion in limine. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 1/3/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
8
KELLY MANTERIS,
Plaintiff,
9
10
v.
11
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
12
2:11-cv-00045-PMP-CWH
ORDER
13
Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff’s Addendum to Motion in
14
15
Limine #4 (Doc. #105). In the Addendum, Plaintiff contends the Court should exclude the
16
testimony of Adam Mandilk and Joe McMahon, the videographers who shot the
17
surveillance videos of Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that these two witnesses are substantive
18
rather than impeachment witnesses, and therefore should have been disclosed by Defendant
19
in the Joint Pre-Trial Order or in Defendant’s Pre-Trial Disclosures. Defendant responds
20
that impeachment evidence does not need to be disclosed, and that the witnesses should be
21
permitted to provide authentication or foundational testimony regarding the surveillance
22
videos.
23
The witnesses may provide authentication or foundational testimony regarding
24
the surveillance videos, to the extent the surveillance videos are received at trial. However,
25
the Court will reserve ruling on specific objections to these witnesses’ testimony to the
26
extent they seek to testify beyond authenticity or foundation at trial.
1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Addendum to Motion in
2
Limine #4 (Doc. #105) is hereby DENIED without prejudice to renew specific objections to
3
the testimony of Adam Mandilk and Joe McMahon during trial.
4
5
6
7
DATED: January 3, 2013
_______________________________
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?