Gillis et al v. Murphy-Brown, LLC

Filing 225

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 105 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 179 Motion in Limine; granting 187 Motion in Limine; denying 189 Motion to Enforce Scheduling Order and Strike Untimely Motions in Limine; granting 190 Motio n in Limine; denying 194 Motion for a Jury Drawn from the Southern Division Jury Pool; denying 196 Motion to Exclude Questions and Argument That Defendant Should Have Settled. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 11/9/2018. (Herrmann, L.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CASE NO: 7:14-CV-185-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 are a number of motions.

A

hearing was held on October 30, 2018, during which these motions
were discussed.

The court’s rulings follow:

1)

Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude references
to and evidence of Chinese ownership, exports of
pork to China and other Asian nations, and racial
issues (ECF No. 105) is GRANTED. In the related
cases of McKiver v. Murphy-Brown, LLC, Civil Action
No. 7:14-180-BR, McGowan v. Murphy-Brown, LLC,
Civil Action No. 7:14-182-BR, and Artis v.
Murphy-Brown, LLC, Civil Action No. 7:14-237-BR,
the court granted similar motions. See ECF No.
102. The court granted the motion for the same
reasons expressed in those earlier cases and as
placed on the record at the hearing on October 30,
2018. However, as the trial progresses, should
plaintiffs’ counsel believe that defendant has
opened the door to greater inquiry into that type
of evidence, counsel should seek leave of the court
for a sidebar conference so that the court may
revisit its ruling;

2)

Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony
Related to the Pickett Gravesite (ECF No. 179) is
DENIED as moot. At the hearing on October 30,
2018, counsel for plaintiffs informed the court

that he did not intend to offer testimony about the
Pickett gravesite;
3)

Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Argument,
Editorializing, or Testimony by Plaintiffs’ Counsel
While Questioning Witnesses Before the Jury (ECF
No. 187) is GRANTED.

4)

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce the Scheduling Order
and Strike Untimely Motions in Limine and for Order
Prohibiting the Filing of Additional Motions in
Limine (ECF No. 189) is DENIED. Should defendants
file any additional motions in limine, plaintiffs
may ask the court that those motions be stricken;

5)

Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude References
to Other Nuisance Trials or Cases (ECF No. 190) is
GRANTED. If counsel finds it necessary to question
a witness about and/or impeach a witness with his
or her prior testimony, counsel should do so in a
manner that does not reference the previous trials
or other cases pending before the court. Finally,
should counsel feel that a witness and/or opposing
counsel has opened the door to greater inquiry into
testimony from a previous trial, see, e.g., ECF No.
218 at p. 4 (discussing defendant’s November 5,
2018 discovery responses) counsel should seek leave
of the court for a sidebar conference so that the
court may revisit its ruling;

6)

Defendant’s Motion for a Jury Drawn from the
Southern Division Jury Pool and Objection to
Transfer of Venue (ECF No. 194) is DENIED; and

7)

Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Questions and
Argument that Defendant Should Have Settled (ECF
No. 196) is DENIED. Of course plaintiffs are not
permitted to offer or solicit evidence excluded by
Federal Rule of Evidence 408. However, the
evidence sought to be excluded by defendant does
not fall under that rule.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to all
counsel of record.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of November, 2018.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

3