CZARNECKI et al v. KRAUSE, INC. et al

Filing 83

ORDER THAT AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTIONS IN LIMINE, AND ALL RESPONSES AND REPLIES TO RESPONSES THERETO, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT DOC 51 , IS DENIED AS MOOT IN LIGHT OF PRIOR RULING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF MR. JOHANSON'S TESTIMONY; DOC. [5 2], IS GRANTED; DOC. 53 , IS DENIED; DOC. 54 , IS GRANTED; DOCS. 55 AND 56 ARE DENIED; DOC. 57 , IS DENIED AS TO EVIDENCE OF MR. CZARNECKI'S ALLEGED MISUSE OF THE LADDER, AND DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO CHARGING THE JURY ON ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK; DOC. 58 , IS GRANTED; DOC. 59 , IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT THAT DEFENDANT WILL BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING VISUAL EVIDENCE OF DR. QUAN'S SHAKE TEST OR ANY TEST USING AN EXEMPLAR LADDER IN OTHER THAN ITS STRAIGHT CONFIGURATION, AND IS OTHERWISE DENIED. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH T. HEY ON 6/15/09. 6/16/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA J A M E S CZARNECKI and A N N E CZARNECKI, h/w v. H O M E DEPOT USA, INC. : : : : : : C IV IL ACTION

N O . 07-4384

ORDER A N D NOW, this 15th day of June, 2009, after consideration of the motions in lim in e filed by Plaintiffs and Defendant (Docs. 51-59), and all responses and replies to re s p o n se s thereto, it is hereby ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. D o c . 51 (Defendant's motion in limine to bar Norman Johanson's testimony th a t the "clicking" sounds constitute a defect) is DENIED AS MOOT in lig h t of my prior ruling on the admissibility of Mr. Johanson's testimony; D o c . 52 (Defendant's motion in limine to bar Mr. Johanson from referring to claims or lawsuits regarding Krause Multi-Matic ladders) is GRANTED; D o c. 53 (Plaintiffs' motion in limine to preclude cumulative expert te s tim o n y) is DENIED; D o c . 54 (Plaintiffs' motion in limine to preclude Defendant from in tro d u c in g evidence that Mr. Johanson's theory of causation had been re jec ted in Mirchandani, or any other case) is GRANTED; D o c s. 55 and 56 (Plaintiffs' motions in limine to preclude biomechanical an d /o r reconstruction testimony of defense experts Quan and Ver Halen) are D E N IE D ; D o c. 57 (Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude evidence of Plaintiff's m isu se of the ladder and to omit jury charge on assumption of risk) is D E N IE D as to evidence of Mr. Czarnecki's alleged misuse of the ladder, a n d DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to charging the jury on a ss u m p tio n of the risk; D o c . 58 (Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude reference to various in d u stry standards) is GRANTED;

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

D o c . 59 (Plaintiffs' motion in limine to preclude misleading portions of v id e o tap e d demonstrations and photographs by Dr. Quan) is GRANTED to th e extent that Defendant will be precluded from presenting visual evidence o f Dr. Quan's shake test or any test using an exemplar ladder in other than its straight configuration, and is otherwise DENIED.

B Y THE COURT: /s/ ELIZABETH T. HEY ___________________________________ E L IZ A B E T H T. HEY U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE