Guthrie v. Ball et al

Filing 234

ORDER denying 132 " Motion in Limine #18 to Exclude to Exclude Any Argument, Testimony, or Other Evidence Regarding Plaintiffs Claim for Punitive Damages or That Defendant Acted Intentionally [sic], Maliciously, Fraudulently, Or Recklessly." Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K Lee on 10/14/2014. (BJL, ) Modified on 10/15/2014 (BJL, ).

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 “Motion in Limine #18 to Exclude Any Argument, Testimony, or Other
Evidence Regarding Plaintiff’s Claim for Punitive Damages or That Defendant Acted Intetionally
[sic], Maliciously, Fraudulently, Or Recklessly” filed by Defendant Gregory Ball, M.D.
(“Defendant”) [Doc. 132]. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion along with almost
200 pages of deposition testimony and other documents attached as exhibits [Doc. 175]. No reply
was filed.
In summary, Defendant claims that because the complaint lacks any factual allegations
supporting her punitive damages claim and because there are no facts or expert opinions supporting
such a claim, her motion in limine should be granted under the reasoning of Hodges v. S.C. Toof
& Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992) and its progeny. Plaintiff responds that the motion in limine
is nothing more than a thinly disguised, belated dispositive motion.
The complaint, which alleges a punitive damages claim, was filed November 14, 2011. The
deadline for filing dispositive motions expired on August 11, 2014. The Court agrees that this
motion is a dispositive motion attempting to masquerade as a motion in limine, as argued by
Plaintiff. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the argument that Plaintiff’s punitive damages

claim is not supported by sufficient factual averments in the complaint is more properly addressed
by a Rule 12 motion and the argument that the undisputed facts demonstrate that Defendant did not
act intentionally, maliciously, fraudulently, or recklessly is more properly addressed by a Rule 56
motion.
The irony of the situation is not lost on the Court, since many of the 60+ in limine requests
filed by the parties go way beyond the bounds of a proper motion in limine. See Louzon v. Ford
Motor Co., 718 F.3d 556, 561-63 (6th Cir. 3013). While Plaintiff may well be accused of employing
a similar strategy with respect to some of her in limine filings, Defendant failed to file a Rule 12 or
Rule 56 motion on Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. The Court concludes it would be improper
to address this important issue without affording Plaintiff the protections built into Rules 12 and 56
with respect to both the timing, standards, and substance of such dispositive motions under the
circumstances. Id.
Accordingly, the “Motion in Limine #18 to Exclude to Exclude Any Argument, Testimony,
or Other Evidence Regarding Plaintiff’s Claim for Punitive Damages or That Defendant Acted
Intetionally [sic], Maliciously, Fraudulently, Or Recklessly” [Doc. 132] is DENIED on the current
record.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/fâátÇ ^A _xx
SUSAN K. LEE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2