HUNTER-MCLEOD et al v. DOLLAR GENERAL

Filing 28

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 9/16/2014. 9/16/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GERALDINE HUNTER-McLEOD,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
DOLLAR GENERAL,
Defendant.

NO. 13-3113

ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of Defendant’s
Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures Contained in
Surveillance Video (Document No. 20, filed June 9, 2014), Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s
Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence of Subsequent Remedial Measures Contained in
Surveillance Video (Document No. 25, filed June 16, 2014), Defendant’s Motion in Limine to
Preclude Plaintiff’s Expert Vincent J. DiStefano, M.D., from Offering Certain Evidence at Trial
(Document No. 21, filed June 9, 2014), and Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion in
Limine to Preclude Plaintiff’s Expert Vincent J. DiStefano, M.D., from Offering Certain
Evidence at Trial (Document No. 26, filed June 16, 2014). For the reasons set forth in the
Memorandum dated September 16, 2014, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence of Subsequent Remedial
Measures Contained in Surveillance Video (Document No. 20, filed June 9, 2014) is
GRANTED.

2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff’s Expert Vincent J. DiStefano,
M.D., from Offering Certain Evidence at Trial (Document No. 21, filed June 9, 2014)
is GRANTED with respect to that part of the Motion which seeks to preclude Dr.
DiStefano’s opinion that the accident in question “may have” aggravated the

degenerative arthritis of plaintiff’s left hip and DENIED with respect to that part of
the Motion which seeks to preclude Dr. DiStefano’s testimony on the medical
opinions of plaintiff’s treating physicians, subject to defendant’s right to object to any
questions or other evidence deemed to be inadmissible.
3. These rulings are WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the parties’ right to seek
reconsideration if warranted by the evidence presented at trial or for any other
appropriate reason.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.

2