Gillis et al v. Murphy-Brown, LLC

Filing 280

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 78 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 103 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 177 Motion in Limine; denying 222 Motion to Strike; denying as moot 243 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 268 Motion Requesting Use of Special Verdict Form and Interrogatories; denying 270 MOTION to Strike Dr. Rogers' Improper Testimony and for a Curative Instruction; granting 271 Motion to Seal; denying as moot 272 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 12/6/2018. (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.

The

court’s rulings follow:
1)

Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude or limit
the expert testimony of Dr. Jeffery Tomberlin. (ECF
No. 78). By Order entered on October 24, 2018, the
court deferred ruling on the motion pending a
Daubert hearing. Plaintiffs did not call Dr.
Tomberlin as a witness. Therefore, the motion in
limine is DENIED as moot.

2)

Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude certain
photographs and evidence. (ECF No. 103). Insofar
as the court excluded the photographs and videos
discussed in that motion at trial it was GRANTED.
The motion was DENIED in all other respects, either
for reasons placed on the record at trial or as
moot because the photographs and videos were never
presented.

3)

Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude cumulative
and prejudicial notice evidence. (ECF No. 177).
Insofar as the court excluded evidence discussed in
that motion at trial it was GRANTED. The motion
was DENIED in all other respects, either for
reasons placed on the record at trial or as moot
because evidence outlined in that motion was never
presented.

4)

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Motion to Exclude
Evidence Regarding Remedial Measures Implicated by
Defendant’s by Defendant’s October 25, 2018 Press
Release, to Strike Fourth Amended Sholar Fact
Sheet, and for Sanctions. (ECF No. 222). That
motion is DENIED.

5)

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the
court’s earlier order granting plaintiffs’ motion
to exclude late-disclosed witnesses. (ECF No.
243). Defendant rested its case prior to the
court’s disposition of this motion. Accordingly,
it is DENIED as moot.

6)

Defendant’s motion requesting use of special
verdict form and interrogatories. (ECF No. 268).
For reasons placed on the record on December 5,
2018, that motion was DENIED.

7)

Defendant’s motion to strike Dr. Rogers’ improper
testimony and for a curative instruction. (ECF No.
270). For reasons placed on the record on December
5, 2018, that motion was DENIED.

8)

Defendant’s Motion to Seal. (ECF No. 271).
Because the declaration and affidavit at issue
contain juror information not subject to public
disclosure, it is GRANTED. The public’s interest
in disclosure is satisfied by the redacted versions
of both documents which have been filed as exhibits
to the motion to seal.

9)

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
court’s order excluding the expert testimony of Dr.
Pam Dalton. (ECF No. 272). Defendant rested its
case prior to the court’s disposition of this
motion. Accordingly, it is DENIED as moot.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to all
counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2018.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
2