Bieber et al v. Nace et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying deft Eastern's motion in limine 65 to preclude argument that employees of Eastern fled the scene or attempted to conceal their involvement in 6/2/08 accident w/out prejudice to Eastern's right to object to evidence or argument it believes is improperly offered @ trial. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 01/12/12. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEPHEN K. BIEBER and KAREN
BIEBER,
Plaintiffs
v.
DAVID J. NACE and EASTERN
INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-0718
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of January, 2012, upon consideration of the motion
in limine (Doc. 65), filed by defendant Eastern Industries, Inc., to preclude
argument that employees of Easter Industries, Inc. fled the scene or attempted to
conceal their involvement in the June 2, 2008, accident,1 wherein Eastern Industries
argues that the evidence is clear that its employees neither fled from the scene nor
concealed their involvement, and thus such argument is baseless, irrelevant and
would confuse the jury in contravention of Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and
403, and upon further consideration of the response thereto (Doc. 68-2) filed by
Stephen and Karen Bieber (“the Biebers”), wherein the Biebers assert that there is
plenty of evidence calling into question of the actions of Eastern Industries’
employees subsequent to the accident, that the evidence is squarely relevant to
1

By scheduling order, the court set a deadline of November 18, 2011, for the
filing of motions in limine. (Doc. 30). Eastern Industries filed the present motion in
limine on December 19, 2011. Despite the untimeliness of the motion, the court will
address it on the merits.

their cause of action, and that credibility determinations are the sole province of the
jury, and the court noting that relevant evidence is “evidence having any tendency
to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence,” FED .
R. EVID . 401, but “that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,
or misleading the jury,” FED . R. EVID . 403, and it appearing that there is conflicting
evidence regarding the actions of Eastern Industries’ employees and whether they
fled the scene or attempted to conceal their involvement in the accident, (Compare
Doc. 66, Exs. B-F, with Doc. 68 Exs. A-F), and the court finding that the evidence is
relevant to whether Eastern Industries is liable to the Biebers, see FED . R. EVID .
401, and that “[e]valuation of witness credibility is the exclusive function of the
jury” Bhaya v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 832 F.2d 258, 262 (3d Cir. 1987), and the
court concluding that the evidence is not so unfairly prejudicial or likely to confuse
the jury as to warrant its exclusion, see FED . R. EVID . 403, it is hereby ORDERED
that the motion in limine (Doc. 65) to preclude argument that employees of Easter
Industries, Inc. fled the scene or attempted to conceal their involvement in the
June 2, 2008, accident is DENIED without prejudice to Eastern Industries’ right to
object to evidence or argument it believes is improperly offered at trial.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge