Wise v. Southern Tier Express, Inc.
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 83 Motion in Limine No. 5 (Drug Rehab, Use, or Abuse). Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 7/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RODERICK WISE, an individual,
SOUTHERN TIER EXPRESS, INC., a New
York corporation; DOES I through X; and
ROE CORPORATIONS I through X,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01219-APG-PAL
ORDER DENYING MOTION IN
LIMINE NO. 5 (DRUG REHAB, USE, OR
(ECF No. 83)
Plaintiff Roderick Wise seeks to exclude “evidence of time spent in rehab and/or drug use
or abuse by Mr. Wise.” ECF No. 83. The defendant responds that Wise’s history of drug and
alcohol use is relevant to his allegation of memory problems, and that his drug use history is
relevant to the treatment he has received as a result of this accident. ECF No. 101 at 2-3. The
defendant also argues that there is evidence Wise has improperly used his pain medication and
that he was not honest with his physicians about his pain medication usage. Id.
I deny Wise’s motion without prejudice to object to particular questions, answers, and
arguments at trial. To the extent the defendant is able to lay an evidentiary foundation that Wise
has misused drugs or pain medication, that may be relevant to his healing process, the treatment
he was prescribed, and his life expectancy for purposes of calculating his damages. Additionally,
to the extent there is an evidentiary basis to show that Wise was not truthful with his treating
physicians about misuse of medications, that may bear on his credibility. The defendant may
make arguments about pain medication abuse so long as those arguments are supported by
evidence elicited at trial. Therefore, Wise’s motion in limine (ECF No. 83) is DENIED.
DATED this 10th day of July, 2017.
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?