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)

Download PDF
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?