Decker v. I.E. Miller Services, Inc. et al

Filing 168

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. granting in part and denying in part 103 Motion in Limine; denying 108 Motion for Protective Order; terminating 148 Motion for Reconsideration. (BG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Scot Decker,
Plaintiff,
v.
I.E. Miller Services, Inc., et al
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER RE PRETRIAL AND TRIAL
MOTIONS

Case No. 4:14-cv-00088

The following are the court’s rulings with respect to several pretrial or trial motions that have
not formally ruled upon or termed.
1.

Motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Chaput at Doc. No. 103

During the trial, the court stated it was going to permit the testimony of Dr. Chaput
notwithstanding defendant’s motion at Doc. No. 103, but would consider whether defendant was
entitled to relief short of prohibiting Dr. Chaput’s testimony. After careful consideration, the court
concludes that the report prepared by Dr. Chaput was deficient but that defendant was not
substantially prejudiced given the discovery deposition taken of Dr. Chaput. That being said,
defendant is entitled to some relief. The court will not allow plaintiff to tax the costs of the
deposition transcripts/recordings for either the discovery deposition or the trial deposition of Dr.
Chaput. In limiting the relief to this, the court concludes it was likely that defendant would have
taken a discovery deposition of Dr. Chaput even had his report been more complete. For these
reasons, defendant’s motion at Doc. No. 103 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

1

2.

Motion for a protective order to prohibit the taking of certain depositions at
Doc. No. 108

Defendant filed a motion to prohibit the retaking of several depositions at Doc. No. 103.
This dispute was the subject of an earlier informal conference call with the parties on December 15,
2017, during which the court indicated it would likely permit the retaking of the depositions given
what the court understood at the time, which was that these were early depositions and the parties
had since acquired material information that opened up additional lines of inquiry. The court stated,
however, that it would require plaintiff to make arrangement for the defense counsel to participate
by phone to save costs. At trial, the court allowed in testimony from at least one of these
depositions, overruling the motion. For these reasons, the court formally affirms the DENIAL of
the motion at Doc. No. 108.
3.

Plaintiff’s motion at Doc. No. 148 for reconsideration of the Court's Ruling
regarding the Deposition Testimony of Jerry Anderson

Plaintiff’s motion at Doc. No. 148 is TERMED for the record. During the trial, the court
ruled on motion and allowed certain testimony of Jerry Anderson to be admitted, but limited to the
issue of whether defendant had contemporaneous notice of the accident. Prior to the evidence being
presented to the jury, the court indicated it would give a limiting instruction to the jury if defendant
requested one, but no request was made.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 21st day of February, 2018.
/s/ Charles S. Miller, Jr.
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge
United States District Court

2