Gillis et al v. Murphy-Brown, LLC

Filing 173

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 122 Motion in Limine with the caveat that defendants counsel may request a bench conference at trial consistent with the courts prior ruling. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 10/23/2018. (Edwards, S.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION CASE No. 7:14-cv-000185-BR ANNJEANETTE GILLIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MURPHY-BROWN, LLC, d/b/a SMITHFIELD HOG PRODUCTION DIVISION, Defendant.   Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion in Limine regarding Evidence or Argument on Hiring an Attorney and Incorporated Brief (ECF No. 122). The plaintiffs raised the same motion in the cases of McKiver v. Murphy-Brown, LLC, Civil Matter No. 7:14-180-BR; McGowan v. Murphy-Brown, LLC, Civil Matter No. 7:14-182-BR; and Artis v. Murphy Brown, LLC, Civil Matter No. 7:14-237-BR. In McKiver and McGowan, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion, with the caveat that “if during the trial defendant’s counsel believed testimony on these issues would be appropriate and should not be excluded, i.e., fitting within the parameters of what the court suggested would be allowable, counsel could approach the bench and the court would hear argument.” Similarly, in Artis, the court allowed plaintiffs’ motion to exclude evidence or argument on hiring an attorney; however, the caveat was not included in the court’s order. For the reasons stated in the above-mentioned cases, the motion is GRANTED with the caveat that defendant’s counsel may request a bench conference at trial consistent with the court’s prior ruling. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd of October, 2018. ENTER:   David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 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?