Harker v. Harvie's Hot Shot Service and Trucking, Inc.

Filing 64

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. denying without prejudice 56 Motion in Limine No. 1 and granting in part 56 Motion in Limine No. 2. (KT)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
Jason R. Harker,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Harvie’s Hot Shot Service and Trucking,
Inc., a Montana corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1-2

Case No. 1:14-cv-038

Before the court are defendant’s motions in limine 1-2 (Doc. No. 56). The following are the
court’s rulings:
Motion in Limine No. 1
In this motion, defendant moves to exclude from evidence any testimony from plaintiff’s
economic expert that is hearsay and also that which is an opinion as to plaintiff’s medical condition
or status of disability. This motion is DENIED without prejudice on the grounds it is premature
since the court is uncertain as to what evidence will be offered. Obviously, the economic expert
cannot opine on plaintiff’s medical condition, including whether he has a disability, but it does not
appear that plaintiff will be introducing such evidence. Rather, it appears the economic expert will
be testifying about the economic aspect of plaintiff’s limitations as supported by other competent
evidence - at least that is what will be required. Finally, the argument that exclusion of the
testimony of plaintiff’s economist is required because it relies upon hearsay is frivolous given Fed.
R. Evid. 703.

1

Motion in Limine No. 2
Defendant requests in its second motion in limine that the court prohibit any testimony,
argument, or other mention of the fact that the defendant conveyed lakefront and residential property
to Andrew Harvie and Karla Harvie individually. The court GRANTS this motion to the extent that
plaintiff’s counsel shall not mention, argue, or seek to introduce evidence of this conveyance in the
presence of the jury without first obtaining the court’s permission. While this evidence may be
relevant and material with respect to any attempt to enforce a judgment if plaintiff obtains one, the
court doubts the relevancy of this evidence at trial where the issues are whether defendant was
negligent or vicariously liable for the negligence of Mr. Gitchel, and, if so, whether the negligence
caused plaintiff damage. Not surprisingly, plaintiff has not cited to a single case establishing the
relevancy of this evidence in a comparable situation.
Dated this 10th day of June, 2015.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

2