Mid-South Investments, Inc. v. Statesville Flying Service, Inc.

Filing 51

ORDER denying 33 Motion in Limine subject to specific objection at trial. Other generic types of motions in limine are all denied subject to specific objection at trial. Plf need not respond to this motion. Plf shall respond to 35 Motion in Limine and 37 Motion to Exclude by Friday, May 13, 2016, at 4:00 pm. Dft shall respond to 47 Motion in Limine by Monday, May 16, 2016, at 4:00 pm. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 5/11/2016. (cbb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-00182-RLV-DSC
MID-SOUTH INVESTMENTS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATESVILLE FLYING SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

BEFORE THE COURT are the following motions:
1.

Defendant Statesville Flying Service, Inc.’s “Motion in Limine” (Doc. 33) and

accompanying memorandum (Doc. 34);
2.

Defendant Statesville Flying Service, Inc.’s “Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of

Allen J. Fiedler” (Doc. 35) and accompanying memorandum (Doc. 36);
3.

Defendant Statesville Flying Service, Inc.’s “Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s ‘New’

Photographs and Evidence Produced After the Close of Discovery.” (Doc. 37) and accompanying
memorandum (Doc. 38); and
4.

Plaintiff Mid-South Investments, Inc.’s “Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of

Sammy Bereznak” (Doc. 47) and accompanying memorandum (Doc. 49), filed less than a week
before trial.
Defendant Statesville Flying Service, Inc.’s “Motion in Limine” (Doc. 33) is DENIED
subject to specific objection at trial. Defendant desires to preclude the admission of evidence of
insurance or of mediation. Defendant also desires this Court to prohibit lay persons from offering
expert opinion. Further, the Defendant desires this Court to preclude admission of matters not

produced during discovery or exchanged pursuant to pretrial disclosures. Finally, Defendant
desires this Court to prohibit “Loss of Use” testimony. 1 The Court is aware of these rules. These
generic types of motions in limine are disfavored. Accordingly, all are DENIED subject to specific
objection at trial. Plaintiff need not respond to this motion.
Remaining before the Court’s consideration are Defendant Statesville Flying Service,
Inc.’s “Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Allen J. Fiedler” (Doc. 35) and Defendant
Statesville Flying Service, Inc.’s “Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s ‘New’ Photographs and Evidence
Produced After the Close of Discovery.” (Doc. 37). Plaintiff has yet to file a response. Plaintiff
shall file a response to both motions by Friday, May 13, 2016 at 4:00 pm. Also remaining
before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Sammy Bereznak”
(Doc. 47). Defendant shall file a response by Monday, May 16, at 4:00 pm.
This trial is a bench trial. The Court is the gatekeeper and the factfinder. The parties are
placed on notice of the Court’s general intention to hear the evidence subject to its later exclusion.
Schultz v. Butcher, 24 F.3d 626, 632 (4th Cir. 1994); In re Salem, 465 F.3d 767, 777 (7th Cir.
2006); United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Sebolt, 554
F. App'x 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2014).
SO ORDERED.

Signed: May 11, 2016

1

The Court notes that the parties have filed a consent motion to amend the complaint to eliminate these damages.
The Court has already granted the motion to amend.