Gillis et al v. Murphy-Brown, LLC

Filing 207

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 112 Motion in Limine. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 11/5/2018. (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 defendant’s motion in Limine for a Jury View. (ECF No. 112). The defendant 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. the defendant’s motion.1 In all of these cases, the court denied For the reasons set forth in the                                                              A district court may deny a party's request for a jury view if the court believes it would be “time consuming, difficult to control, and ... [un]necessary in order for the jury to fully appreciate the case.” Kelley v. Wegman's Food Markets, Inc., 98 F. App'x 102, 105 (3d Cir.2004). Furthermore, a court may deny a party's request for a jury view where the other evidence admitted is sufficient otherwise without the jury view. Id. (upholding denial of a jury view where numerous photographs and reports and relevant testimony were allowed into evidence); United States v. Passos–Paternina, 918 F.2d 979, 986 (1st Cir.1990)(upholding the denial of a request for a jury view of a ship where there was sufficient testimonial evidence about the vessel); United States v. Triplett, 195 F.3d 990, 999 (8th Cir .1999)(upholding the denial of a jury view where the trial 1 court’s prior orders on this motion, the defendant’s motion for a Jury View is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to all counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th of November, 2018. ENTER:   David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge                                                              evidence included photographs and diagrams of the sites of the defendant's arrests in addition to testimony concerning the circumstances and conditions at those locations at the relevant times); Hametner v. Villena, 361 F.2d 445, 446 (9th Cir.1966) (upholding denial where the evidence included photographs and a surveyor's diagram of the scene, and the requested jury view, “with its attendant delay and inconvenience, was unnecessary and unwarranted”).  

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?