VITALE et al v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.

Filing 79

ORDER THAT PLFFS' OMNIBUS MOTION TO PRECLUDE CERTAIN EVIDENCE (ECF NO. 47) IS GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART. PLFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE (ECF NO. 70) IS DENIED; & DEFT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE (ECF NOS. 36, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 & 53) ARE DISPOSED AS OUTLINED HEREIN, ETC. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET ON 8/14/18. 8/14/18 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH VITALE, et al
Plaintiffs,
v.
ELECTROLUX HOME
PRODUCTS, INC:
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-cv-01815-RAL

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of August, 2018, for the reasons set forth in the
accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Omnibus
Motion to Preclude Certain Evidence (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part; Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Industry Standard Evidence and the Dryer
Design Opinions of Randall Bills, P.E. (ECF No. 70) is DENIED; and Defendant’s motions
in limine (ECF Nos. 36, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, and 53) are disposed of as follows:
ECF No. 36 is DENIED, except that Mr. Stoddard may not testify as to whether having
formal internal product safety standards or training is a standard of care in the area of dryer
product design, nor may Mr. Stoddard opine as to any causal link between the absence of a
formal internal product safety standards and the design flaws in the product; ECF No. 41 is
DENIED, and the Vitales’ cross-motion in response is DENIED; ECF No. 43 is
GRANTED; ECF No. 44 is GRANTED; ECF No. 46 is GRANTED; ECF No. 48 and ECF
No. 50 are GRANTED in part; ECF No. 49 is GRANTED in part; ECF No. 51 is
DENIED; ECF No. 52 is DENIED; and ECF No. 53 is DENIED.
SO ORDERED:

/s/ Richard A. Lloret
RICHARD A. LLORET
U.S. Magistrate Judge

.

46