Guthrie v. Ball et al

Filing 160

ORDER granting, without objection, 88 Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence that Donald Guthrie Ever Took Recreational Drugs During His Lifetime. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 10/3/2014. (BJL, ) Modified on 10/3/2014 (BJL,).***Mailed to Attorney John Pate.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
KAREN GUTHRIE, Individually and on
behalf of the estate of DONALD GUTHRIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY BALL, M.D.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-cv-333-SKL

ORDER
Before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence that Donald
Guthrie Ever Took Recreational Drugs During His Lifetime” filed by Plaintiff Karen Guthrie,
individually and on behalf of the Estate of Donald Guthrie (“Plaintiff”), to prohibit Defendant
Gregory Ball, M.D. (“Defendant”) from introducing any evidence or argument that Mr. Guthrie ever
took recreational drugs during his lifetime, including illegal drugs [Doc. 88]. Plaintiff has also
submitted an affidavit with exhibits in support of her motion [Doc. 89]. In the motion, Plaintiff
argues all evidence of Mr. Guthrie’s prior use of drugs that were not obtained by prescription should
be excluded because it is irrelevant to the cause of his death, it constitutes inadmissible character
evidence, and its probative value is exceeded by its prejudicial effect on the jury. Plaintiff seeks an
order precluding Defendant from discussing or offering evidence related to any alleged use of
non-prescription medications, including illegal drugs, by Mr. Guthrie at any time prior to his death.
Defendant failed to file a timely response to the motion.
Plaintiff argues that any evidence of recreational or illegal drug usage is irrelevant because
any such usage stopped more than nine years prior to Mr. Guthrie’s death. Plaintiff also contends
that during the time Mr. Guthrie was a patient of the Defendant he was screened for illegal drug

usage and no such drugs were ever detected. In addition, no illegal drugs were reported in the
autopsy. Plaintiff states there is no evidence of recreational drug usage at or near the time of death
and none of the experts have opined that recreational drugs caused or contributed to Mr. Guthrie’s
death. Plaintiff argues any evidence concerning the alleged past use of non-prescribed drugs is
improper character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and more prejudicial than
probative under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
“Relevant evidence” is evidence that “has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable
than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. “Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.”
Fed. R. Evid. 402. “Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible to prove
that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character trait.” Fed. R. Evid.
404(a)(1).
Evidence of a history of drug use is not admissible to show that Mr. Guthrie has the character
of a drug user, see Landis v. Galarneau, 2010 WL 458143 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2010) (court in
wrongful death action held that decedent’s purported history of drug use was not admissible to show
decedent had the “character” of a drug user, but potentially could be admissible to show he was
intoxicated when he died), but such drug history evidence potentially could be relevant and
admissible for other purposes. The Court will not reach this issue, however, because Defendant has
failed to file any response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion within the time permitted under the
scheduling order.
Plaintiff’s motion was filed on September 24, 2014. The scheduling order, as amended,
states that “[a]ny response to a motion in limine will be due within five (5) days [Doc. 54 at Page
ID # 333]. The scheduling order does not provide three days for service as usually permitted by

2

Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, even assuming that three days for
service was allowed here, the deadline for Defendant to file a response to this motion (as well as for
many of Plaintiff’s other motions in limine) would be October 2, 2014. Defendant failed to file any
response to Plaintiff’s motion by this deadline, and this failure to respond to the motion is deemed
a waiver of any opposition to the relief sought under the Local Rules. E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence that Donald Guthrie
Ever Took Recreational Drugs During His Lifetime” [Doc. 88] is GRANTED without objection.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3